JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the reasoned order issued vide Memo No. 294 dated 3.2.2021 (Annexure-11) by which the respondent authorities have although observed that the petitioner can not be held responsible for the same alone but the punishment of censure has been imposed against the petitioner ignoring the two categorical facts that in the earlier round of litigation, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to observe categorically to consider the contention raised by the petitioner in her reply to the show cause in which the petitioner has categorically stated that the compromise made in the Lok Adalat do not constitute misconduct but that has not been dealt and second is the other predecessors, have not been given any punishment since they have not been proceeded departmentally so there should not be any discrimination. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to stay the impugned order dated 3.2.2021 since petitioner is on the verge of being promoted on the higher post and reasoned order has been passed against the petitioner with the sole intention to frustrate her case for promotion for the present and the persons junior to the petitioner could be promoted against the limited number of post considering the fact that the earlier order of punishment by which the increment was withheld in the year 2014 and same was set aside in the year 2020 by the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in W.P.(S) No. 5070/2014 and by that time the currency of punishment has already passed which further shows that the petitioner has already suffered currency of punishment, therefore, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer currency of punishment pursuant to the impugned order dated 3.2.2021. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without considering the present punishment as an impediment till the decision is taken in the present writ petition by the Hon'ble Court.” 3. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without considering the present punishment as an impediment till the decision is taken in the present writ petition by the Hon'ble Court.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was served with a complain given by Citizen Council of India and was asked to reply to the allegations leveled on amongst other including violation of section 65 (2) of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 in relation to M/s Shrraf Metal Works Deoghar. The petitioner submitted her reply stating that the allegation in relation to M/s Shrraf Metal Works is false. However, enquiry was held and report was submitted vide letter no.06 dated 12.06.2013, given to the petitioner vide letter no.2073 dated 22.06.2013 wherein it was found that the settlement made before the Lok Adalat was in violation of Rule 65 (2) of the Standards of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and that the petitioner was responsible for delaying the action. The petitioner then replied to the enquiry report stating that she was not responsible for the compromise made in relation to the case of M/s Shrraf Metal Works since the Enquiry Officer himself had issued letter no. 33 dated 06.06.2006 for compromise with M/s Shrraf Metal Works which shows that the offence hence committed was the first offence. After analyzing the report, the respondent no. 2 accepted that the petitioner violated section 65(2) of the Act, 1985 and proposed for imposing punishment against the petitioner by withholding one increment with cumulative effect which was approved by the Minister Incharge and punishment was issued vide notification No. 2521 dated 21.08.2014. However, the above notification was quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.S. No. 5070 of 2014 vide order dated 17.08.2020 and matter was remitted to the respondent no. 2 to pass fresh order after considering the contention raised by the petitioner. The respondent authorities, thereafter, passed fresh order vide Memo No. 294 dated 03.02.2021 by which punishment of censure has been imposed against the petitioner. 4. 2 to pass fresh order after considering the contention raised by the petitioner. The respondent authorities, thereafter, passed fresh order vide Memo No. 294 dated 03.02.2021 by which punishment of censure has been imposed against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the petitioner was not given the list of cases pending before the Lok Adalat and hence, was unaware of the cases listed for the purpose of making compromise. The learned counsel submits that the enquiry officer Mr. Krishna has falsely implicated the petitioner as impediment to her future growth. The learned counsel states that the predecessors of the petitioner are responsible but no action taken or punishment has been imposed against them. The learned counsel further submits that there is no document showing that it is the second offence committed by M/s Shrraf Metal Works. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that from the Department Notification No. 8823 dated 02/09/2014 it has been clarified that the impact of the “Censure”, which is a minor punishment, will be for 1 year from the date of imposition of Censure. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was a duly notified inspector and it was her duty to get the provisions of law complied. Learned Counsel submits that Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 mentions that “Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case ?? matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law". The learned counsel further submits that the order is passed pursuant to order dated 03.02.2021 passed in W.P.S. No. 5070 of 2014 by a competent authority after going through all the contentions raised by the petitioner in her reply. 6. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of the records, I find that the departmental proceeding has been conducted fairly in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his defense. There has been no violation of any statutory rule. Further, the coordinate bench of this Court quashed the earlier punishment order of withholding one increment and had remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration wherein the department has imposed censure after considering the entire contention raised by the petitioner in her reply to the show cause notice. There has been no violation of any statutory rule. Further, the coordinate bench of this Court quashed the earlier punishment order of withholding one increment and had remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration wherein the department has imposed censure after considering the entire contention raised by the petitioner in her reply to the show cause notice. This order of punishment is minor and does commensurate with the gravity of the proved misconduct and thus, cannot be said to be disproportionate. Be it noted that the allegation against the petitioner is that in a Lok Adalat the offence got compounded though the same was not compoundable as it was second offence of the offender. This petitioner, in the department, did not act properly and diligently to prevent the aforesaid act of compounding. 7. It is well settled that High Courts have very limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot act as an appellate authority and re-evaluate findings of fact or the adequacy of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 has held as under: “23. The scope of examination and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’) in a case of the present nature, is no longer res integra. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, a 3-Judge Bench stated: ‘7. … The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.’” 8. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, and the fact that only a ‘censure’ was issued upon the petitioner on the proved misconduct and the effect of the said punishment is already over by now, I find no merit in this writ petition, calling for any interference with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority, which are under challenged in this writ petition. 9. This writ petition, is accordingly, dismissed.