JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. The Appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15.01.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 7487 of 2012 of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed. 3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner has filed the instant appeal. 4. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned writ Court. 5. The petitioner approached the writ Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 05.01.2012 whereby and whereunder the respondent No.4 (Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police) had imposed the punishment of forfeiture of two years’ increment with cumulative effect. This order of punishment was thereafter affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. 6. The brief facts which led into filing of the instant appeal, are that the petitioner while undergoing training at Jharkhand Armed Police Force, 1 st Battalion, Ranchi for the Senior Promotion Course (SPC), he applied for grant of leave which was forwarded to respondent No.4. Subsequently, the petitioner again gave an application for leave to the Incharge of Doranda Police Station and when the leave was not granted, the petitioner handed over the leave application to the media persons which led to news items being published in two Hindi daily newspapers i.e. Dainik Bhaskar, Ranchi edition dated 30 th April, 2011 and the Ranchi edition of Prabhat Khabar dated 30 th April, 2011. As regards the Dainik Bhaskar it was published under the caption ^^cgu dh 'kknh ds fy, NqV~Vh ekax jgs tSi ds toku us dgk NqV~Vh nks] ugha rks ns nsaxs tku^^ and in Prabhat Khabar it was published under the caption ^^teknkj us flikgh dks ihVk^^- 7. The respondents after coming across the news items felt that the news items tarnished the image of the Police Department and accordingly, the Chief Instructor wrote a letter to the Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police-I dated 30 th April, 2011 and the Commandant, in turn, set up an enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer and framed charges against the petitioner and thereafter issued chargsheet to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner replied to the same and finding the reply not to be satisfactory the Departmental Proceeding No. 5/2011 came to be initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. 9. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of charges. 10. 8. The petitioner replied to the same and finding the reply not to be satisfactory the Departmental Proceeding No. 5/2011 came to be initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. 9. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of charges. 10. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry report as well as the misconduct of the appellant, passed the order of punishment dated 05.01.2012 thereby ordering withholding of one increment for two years with cumulative effect. 11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.06.2012. The petitioner then preferred a revision application before the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, even the revision also came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2012 constraining the petitioner to approach the writ Court. 12. The learned writ Court after taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed the instant appeal. 13. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and revisional authority while imposing the penalty and thereafter affirming the same have ignored the provisions of Jharkhand Police Manual Rules and the Police Act, 1861 which in fact has not at all been considered by the learned writ Court. 14. We have considered the arguments so raised by the petitioner and find that this issue was never argued before the learned writ Court and thus, it is deemed to have been dismissed. 15. That apart, the petitioner has not been in a position to elaborate his plea as to which provisions of Jharkhand Police Manual and Police Act have been violated. 16. The charges of misconduct against the petitioner are very serious in nature and we are of the considered view that the petitioner as a matter of fact has been meted with very light punishment given the quantum and magnitude of misconduct. After all the petitioner was a Government servant and cannot act like a private individual, who is free to act in a manner whatever he/she likes unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. 17. After all the petitioner was a Government servant and cannot act like a private individual, who is free to act in a manner whatever he/she likes unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. 17. The petitioner being a Government servant was expected to discharge his duties with complete integrity which would take in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values [Refer to Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 ]. 18. In needs to reiterate that the public servants have to act strictly in the four corners of law and all the activities are governed by rules, regulations, instructions etc. Discipline is the hallmark of every employee and in case, an employee is not ready to subject himself/herself to discipline, then obviously, he not only invites the wrath of his employer but is also liable to be proceeded at least departmentally. Every employee must be loyal and disciplined towards his employer, which the petitioner has failed to do so. 19. The petitioner is not an ordinary Government servant but is a member of a disciplined force who has to exhibit a much higher level of discipline than an ordinary Government servant as has repeatedly been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [Ref to Jai Singh Vs. UOI and others, (2006) 9 SCC 717 , Secy to Government and others Vs. A.C.J., Britto (1997) 3 SCC 387 ]. 20. The learned writ Court after going through the materials on record has held that no case was made out for interference for the following facts and reasons:- “(I). The findings of the enquiry officer were taken into consideration and the punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority assigning cogent and valid reasons. The same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority, which requires no interference. (II) Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any procedural laches in the proceedings rather a full- fledged enquiry was conducted following the provisions of natural justice by extending the petitioner ample opportunity of being heard. The same was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority, which requires no interference. (II) Nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any procedural laches in the proceedings rather a full- fledged enquiry was conducted following the provisions of natural justice by extending the petitioner ample opportunity of being heard. (III) Admittedly, when the order of punishment was affirmed upto the Revisional Authority, this Court refrains itself from interfering with the same.” 21. It is more than settled that this Court even while exercising the writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. 22. Judicial review is not akin to the decision of a case on merit as an appellate authority. Insufficiency of materials cannot be a ground to annul the findings of the Enquiry Officer neither can a substituted view be taken in place of Enquiry officer/disciplinary authority in cases of departmental proceeding and the same would be interfered only when (a) Where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; or (b) the proceedings have been held in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry; or (c) the decision is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; or (d) if the conclusion made by the authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion; or (e) others similar to the above. 23. Lastly and more importantly, it needs to be noticed that the petitioner had given explanation to the charges on 30 th September, 2011 whereas he had himself categorically admitted the charge and this fact has been duly acknowledged in Para 6(ix) of the instant appeal. 24. In view of the above discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.