ORDER : K. Venkataswami, J. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 72 of 1996 dated 19-2-1996. 2. The respondent, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) had committed a serious misconduct by using unparliamentary language towards his senior BHM in front of the other members of the Force and also tried to assault him. A departmental enquiry was conducted against the respondent on the following charges: "Article I That the said No. 791240226 Ct./Mochi Rafique Ali of this group centre while functioning as a member of the Force committed misconduct in his capacity under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he, on 26-9-1990, after roll-call abused BHM Manohar Lal by using unparliamentary language in that, ?Tum Behan Chold Ho Jo Peeche Se Bolte Ho. Mather Chold Tum Nae Mare Bare Main Panthi Sahab Ko Kaya Bataya.? This happened when all SOs/UOs and others were present after roll-call." Article II That the said No. 791240226 Ct./Mochi Rafique Ali of this GC while functioning as a member of the Force committed misconduct in his capacity under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 in that he, on 26-6-1990, after roll-call tried to assault BHM Manohar Lal after using unparliamentary language. Had Inspector S.K. Tewari not interfered, it was possible that Ct./Mochi would have beaten up the BHM. This misconduct was witnessed by all SOs/UD and others of GC CRPF, Guwahati (who were present in the roll-call)." 3. On the basis of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority found that the charges levelled against him had been proved and they warrant the punishment of dismissal from service. Accordingly, the respondent was dismissed from service. The statutory appeal filed by the respondent was also dismissed. Thereafter, he moved the High Court challenging the punishment of dismissal in Civil Rule No. 751 of 1992. The learned Single Judge rightly found that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority. After accepting the findings of the disciplinary authority, the High Court also did not find any procedural irregularity. Thereafter, he moved the High Court challenging the punishment of dismissal in Civil Rule No. 751 of 1992. The learned Single Judge rightly found that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority. After accepting the findings of the disciplinary authority, the High Court also did not find any procedural irregularity. The learned Single Judge, however, interfered with the quantum of punishment by setting aside the dismissal order and remanding back the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposing an appropriate lesser punishment in accordance with law, a punishment other than dismissal/removal or termination from service. 4. Aggrieved by that order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 7 of 1996. The Division Bench confirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal. Hence, the present appeal by special leave. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that once the Court found that the findings given by the disciplinary authority did not call for interference, it ought not to have interfered with the quantum of punishment and such interference is against the law laid down by this Court by numerous judgments. He invited our attention to a recent judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Bakhshish Singh, (1997) 6 SCC 381 . This Court, under similar circumstances, held as follows: (SCC p. 383, para 5) "5. It is the settled legal position that it is for the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate punishment; the civil court cannot substitute its own view to that of the disciplinary as well as appellate authority on the nature of the punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent officer. In view of the finding of the appellate court that it is a grave misconduct, the appellate court ought not to have interfered with the decree of the trial court. The High Court dismissed it without application of the mind and ignoring the settled legal principles." 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that though the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had not expressly stated in the orders that the punishment imposed was the gravest and required interference by the Court, the same was in their mind while passing the order. We are unable to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that though the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had not expressly stated in the orders that the punishment imposed was the gravest and required interference by the Court, the same was in their mind while passing the order. We are unable to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel. Apart from the fact that there was no material to draw such inferences in the judgments of the High Court, we are of the view that having regard to the service to which the respondent belonged and also having regard to the charges which have been proved, we do not consider that any interference with the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service was warranted. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench is set aside. Civil Rule No. 751 of 1992 filed by the respondent stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.