GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as security guard in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Visakhapatnam unit. He was appointed on 15-2-1972. While so, the respondent issued a memo dated 20-10-1982 levelling the charges against the petitioner on the ground that he had committed certain irregularities and proceeded with the enquiry. The petitioner submitted his explanation on10-11-1982 and on 13-10-1982 the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry including examining five witnesses held that the charges against the delinquent employee are proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the major punishment of removal from service by order dated 29/06/1983. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 7196 of 1983 challenging the validity or otherwise of the removal and the same was disposed of on 28-12-1987 directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority contemplated under the Regulations. The appellate authority namely Deputy Inspector General of Police examined the appeal and held that the reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent and the disciplinary authority having considered the gravity of the charges agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of removal from service. An appeal was preferred and the same was dismissed stating that the request of the delinquent seeking assistance in the enquiry is not permissible under the Regulations. The appellate authority observed that in the domestic enquiry the petitioner was given opportunity to defend his case, but he failed to use that opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the appellate authority and to declare that Rule 3 (d) (10) (ii) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules 1989 as unconstitutional and void. ( 2 ) MR. V. Parabrahma Sastry contended that the assistance of co-employee is denied as provided under the Regulation and the disciplinary authority has to form an opinion by applying its mind to the facts of the case particularly the nature of duties and responsibilities assigned to the petitioner. Further, the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment has to form an opinion on the basis of objective criteria by applying its mind and pass appropriate orders. Further, the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment has to form an opinion on the basis of objective criteria by applying its mind and pass appropriate orders. He contends that the appellate authority under Rule 34 has to examine the adequacy or the propriety of the punishment and the appellate authority has failed to consider the same and the enquiry report as contemplated under Rule 34 (ii) was not furnished to the petitioner on which the disciplinary authority relied upon and the said Rule obligated the disciplinary authority to furnish report and communicate the same. He relied upon the decision reported in Ch. HARIPRASAD Vs. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC 1,d. K. YADAV Vs. GROUP COMMANDANT, CISF 2, FIC OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES Vs. R. K. MITTAL 3 and GEC (P) LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD 4 and contended that this Court can interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority when the punishment imposed is not in proportion to the charges proved. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondents contends that non-furnishing of enquiry report is not correct. The minutes of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. Secondly, he contends that when the punishment inflicted is shockingly disproportionate, then in such a situation, the matter has to be remitted back to the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has considered the adequacy or sufficiency of the material and considered at length the report of the Enquiry Officer while dealing with each charge framed against the delinquent and imposed the punishment of removal from service on the proved charge of allowing a civilian inside the VOHC area, seizing certain contraband articles and not reporting the seizure to senior officers and misappropriating the seized goods for his own benefit. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority ought to have imposed minor punishment as per Rule 31 (d) to (h) and passed an order imposing any of the following minor punishments : (i) reduction to a lower lass or trade or rank or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale of pay ; (ii) withholding of increment or promotion (iii) removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of special emolument ; (iv) fine to any amount not exceeding seven days pay or (v) censure, as the charge is mere negligence on the part of a security guard and the other two persons viz. Ramu and Sakthivel were let off. The disciplinary authority after forming an opinion based on the recommendation came to the conclusion that the punishment of removal is neither disproportionate nor excessive considering the nature of duties and responsibilities assigned to the petitioner. As regards the assistance of co-employee to defend his case is concerned, the same is without any basis. The delinquent had requested his friend who is not an employee of the organisation and therefore the question of non-compliance is without any basis. The disciplinary authority has relied upon the material including the evidence of witnesses and the contraband seized and in view of the gravity of the proved charges imposed punishment of removal from service, which is in proportion to the proved charges. Learned standing counsel relied upon the decision in STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. V. K. GADGIL 5 wherein it was held that the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot substitute lesser punishment as the power of High Court is one of judicial review and not of an appellate authority and the Court will not go into sufficiency or otherwise of the punishment if it could be imposed under the Rules for proved misconduct. ( 5 ) I have perused the orders of disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have gone through the entire material and considering the gravity of the charge, the punishment of removal from service was inflicted by disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. This court while exercising judicial review under Article 226 cannot sit as appellate authority. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have gone through the entire material and considering the gravity of the charge, the punishment of removal from service was inflicted by disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. This court while exercising judicial review under Article 226 cannot sit as appellate authority. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority being a fact finding authority, have exclusive power to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude of the misconduct. This Court while exercising judicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty. If the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the court, then it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the disciplinary or appellate authority. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the charges framed against the petitioner are that when he was entrusted with the duty of guarding the Visakhapatnam Ore Handling Plant, he allowed one Ramu to enter the Plant area and confiscated two woolen blankets and 12 foreign beer tins and did not inform the same to the higher up and further derived benefit out of it. Further, the petitioner gave one seized blanket to the security guard and beer cans to Sakthivel and another security guard Singaram. On the basis of entire material available and considering the gravity of the misconduct and the seriousness of the act involved, the disciplinary authority found that the retention of the petitioner in the service is not in the interest of the CISF. Accordingly in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 29 (A) Schedule II of CISF Rules, the petitioner was removed from service with immediate effect. ( 8 ) THE second contention of petitioner s counsel that the appellate authority has not applied its minds and has not formed an opinion and also did not consider that the punishment imposed is excessive or otherwise is without any basis. In fact, the appellate authority had gone into the nature of the petitioner s duties at the relevant point of time and the charges, recorded its satisfaction and found that the punishment inflicted is in consonance with the severity of the delinquency and as such, it does not warrant any interference with the findings of the disciplinary authority. ( 9 ) I have perused the orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority. ( 9 ) I have perused the orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. It is a settled proposition of law that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decisions of the disciplinary authority or appellate authority. The limited jurisdiction vested in this Court is to see whether the punishment imposed on the delinquent is such as to shock the conscience of the court and in such a situation, this Court can interfere and remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the gravity and seriousness of the proved charges and the magnitude of the misconduct, the findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed by appellate authority are justified and consequent removal of petitioner from service is not excessive or disproportionate. In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.