IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5086 of 2009 Ram Bilas Chaudhary Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2/ 22/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector (Operations) was subjected to a departmental proceeding. An order of punishment for reversion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Operations) for the period indicated followed on 13.5.2005. He was indicted on five out of six charges. His appeal against the same was rejected on 7.12.2006 and the Memorial has also been rejected. After the Memo of charges was served on him on 1.7.2004, he submitted his reply on merits on 4.8.2004. After the enquiry report was submitted, he was given a second show cause notice to which he replied also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that documents in support of the charge were not furnished. There is no material on record that any objection was raised for non furnishing of documents under the charge memo dated 1.7.2004 either during the enquiry or in reply in the second show cause notice. 2 No other procedural irregularity in conduct of the departmental proceeding has been alleged to the satisfaction of the Court. The earlier memo of charge dated 22.3.2004 enclosed three documents only. That those documents may not have been served is hardly relevant when the fresh charge sheet dated 1.7.2004 enclosed five document, the receipt of which is not denied. The jurisdiction of the Writ Court in judicial review of an order of punishment pursuant to a departmental proceeding being primarily confined to the decision making process rather than the decision itself, the Court is not satisfied to assume the role of an appellate authority to reassess the evidence and finding all over again. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)