ANJANI KUMAR, J.

(1) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondent No. 1 as well as Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4.

(2) PETITIONER being aggrieved by the Orders passed by the respondents, firstly punishing the petitioner after holding a regular disciplinary proceeding, which the petitioner has challenged before the appellate authority and appellate authority maintained the Order of punishing authority. Aggrieved by the Order of punishment and the Order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a revision before the revisional authority, which refused to interfere on the ground that the petitioner has been afforded full opportunity to defend himself, including the cross-examination of the witness, but he has failed to prove that he is not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The other ground taken before the revisional authority was that during the enquiry proceedings, the complainant and other Inspectors were not present. The revisional authority has rejected this contention also on the ground that this cannot be accepted because the inspectors concerned have put in their signatures along with the person who has lodged the complaint and the same has been Investigated and they were produced before the enquiry officer and got their statements recorded. No question as is now suggested was put in cross-examination of those witnesses, which the learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to place before this court. Relying upon the decision in 2000 (2) ESC 1311, and from what has been stated by the revisional court. It is clear that the facts of the case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are the different and the facts relied upon by the petitioner as laid down in the above noted judgment of Apex Court do not apply to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, this petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. There will be no Order as to costs.