Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. Petitioner while working as a Police Constable in Alappuzha North Police Station was suspended from service pending enquiry. Ext. P1 charge sheet with statement of allegations was issued to the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner in Ext. P1 were that at about 9.30 p.m. on 27.12.1991 the petitioner who was detailed for law and order duty abstained from duty, went to the shop of one Sri. Habee Rahman in front of S.D. V. Girl's High School in an intoxicated state, asked him to close down the shop, threatened him, abused him in such a way as to evoke communal passion and thus misused his official position and committed misconduct. By Ext. P2, he denied the charges. An enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved. 2. By Ext. P4, the Disciplinary Authority, who agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring of next three increments with cumulative effect by order No. H1-5/O.R./92A (A.D.O. 380/92) dated 13.8.1992. Ext. P5 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext. P4 order was disposed of by Ext. P6 order holding that the appeal does not deserve any consideration on merits and that a lesser punishment will meet the ends of justice and accordingly modified the punishment as withholding of increments for two years with cumulative effect. His further representation and review petition were rejected by the Inspector General of Police and Government by Exts. P7 and P9 orders respectively. Petitioner challenges Ext. P4, P6, P7 and P9 orders in this original petition contending that he is not guilty and that the entire action taken against him are illegal. 3. His main attack is on the proceedings adopted in the enquiry and findings of the enquiry officer. The procedural irregularities alleged were that : (1) The petitioner was subjected to medical examination by Dr. Shahul Hameed of Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. The certificate issued by that doctor was produced in evidence in the oral enquiry. Relying on that certificate, the petitioner was found guilty of the allegation of having consumed alcohol. But Dr. Shahul Hameed was not examined as a witness in the course of the oral enquiry and the petitioner was not afforded and opportunity to cross-examine him. (2) The preliminary enquiry was conducted by PW6 Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha Town. Relying on that certificate, the petitioner was found guilty of the allegation of having consumed alcohol. But Dr. Shahul Hameed was not examined as a witness in the course of the oral enquiry and the petitioner was not afforded and opportunity to cross-examine him. (2) The preliminary enquiry was conducted by PW6 Circle Inspector of Police, Alappuzha Town. In the course of that preliminary enquiry he had questioned PWs. 1 to 5 and recorded their statements. Those statements were marked as exhibits in the course of oral enquiry and relied on to enter finding against the petitioner. But in the list of documents in Ext. P1 they were not included. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to peruse them or take down extracts. (3) Findings are not supported by evidence as in the enquiry out of five persons examined in support of the charges, three did not support the charges. Apart from the attack on the enquiry proceedings and findings, it was also contended that disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not apply their mind while passing Exts. P4 and P6 orders. It was also contended that Exts. P7 and P9 orders are not speaking orders and are liable to be set aside. Let me consider these contentions in seriatim. 4. One of the exhibits relied on by the enquiry officer is the certificate of Dr. Shahul Hameed of Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. It is true that doctor was not examined in the enquiry. Copy of the certificate of the doctor was given to the petitioner and it is one of the documents specifically mentioned in the charge sheet (Ext. P1). It is the certificate issued by an expert. There is no case for the petitioner that he was not examined by the above doctor or sample of his blood was not taken. There is also no personal enmity between them. Departmental enquiry is not like a criminal case or a proceeding where Evidence Act or Criminal Procedure Code is applicable. (See N. Rajarathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and another (1997 I LLJ 224 (SC) and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Srinath Gupta and another (1997 I LLJ 677 SC). It was held by the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature, Bombay v.Udaysingh (1997) 5 SCC 129) that technical rule of evidence and proof beyond doubt is not applicable in departmental enquiry. It was held by the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature, Bombay v.Udaysingh (1997) 5 SCC 129) that technical rule of evidence and proof beyond doubt is not applicable in departmental enquiry. The Apex Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. and others v. Ram Chandra Yadav (JT 2000 (8) SC 198) held as follows : "4. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The question whether in a given case the principles have been violated or not has to be found out on consideration as to whether the procedure adopted by the appropriate authority is in accordance with law or not, and further whether the delinquent knew what the charges he is going to meet. In other words, what is required to be examined is whether the delinquent knew the nature of accusation, whether he has been given an opportunity to state his case and whether the Tribunal has acted in good faith. If these requirements are satisfied then it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice has been violated ….." Petitioner did not request the enquiry officer to examine the doctor as a witness. In Ext. P1 charge sheet certificate given by Dr. Shahul Hameed was mentioned as Document No. 5. In the list of witnesses, his name was not mentioned. In Exts. P2 and P3 reply also petitioner he did not request that doctor should be examined. Even in Ext. P3 reply his main allegation is against the complainants and he stated that he did not behave improperly to him. He did not request the enquiry officer to examine the doctor also. Veracity of the certificate was also not questioned . Only after the imposition of punishment, in Ext. P5 appeal this question was raised. Since he did not request the enquiry officer to examine the doctor or did not raise an objection regarding non-examination of the doctor, we are of the opinion that mere non-examination of the expert doctor of Alappuzha Medical College is not enough to set aside the enquiry proceedings especially when there are other evidence also in this case. 5. The second contention is that statement given by PWs. 1 to 5 in the preliminary enquiry was relied on by the enquiry officer. It was not even included in the list of documents. 5. The second contention is that statement given by PWs. 1 to 5 in the preliminary enquiry was relied on by the enquiry officer. It was not even included in the list of documents. It can be seen that all the above witnesses whose statements in preliminary enquiry were marked, were examined before the Court and they were made available for cross examination to the delinquent employee. Witnesses reiterated the same in chief examination. They were actually cross examined. Delinquent employee did not ask for time for cross examination of those witnesses whose statements were marked on the ground that it was not mentioned in the list of documents or copy of the same was not given. In fact, Ext. P3 explanation would show that he was aware of their preliminary depositions. He questions the correctness of their statement. On the facts of the case, it can be seen that no prejudice is caused to him by the conduct of the enquiry especially when those witnesses whose statements were marked were examined. In this connection I refer to the decisions in K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and others (1984(1)LLJ 2) and in State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma (1996 II LLJ 296). 6. With regard to the question whether enquiry officer's findings are correct or not, I am of the opinion that, under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution I am not sitting in appeal. Enquiry officer had considered the evidence adduced in the case and came to the conclusion that petitioner is guilty. In judicial review it is settled law that court has no power to reappreciate the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. See B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India ((1996) 7 SCC 509) and State of Tamil Nadu v. T.L. Venugopal ((1994) 6 SCC 302 and ((1999) 9 SCC 22). In fact, there is sufficient evidence in the case against the petitioner and on the face of this case it cannot be stated that finding of the enquiry officer is perverse as it is based on evidence. 7. Now I shall consider the last contention that the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the higher authority did not apply their mind and their orders are not speaking. Ext. P4 order is a speaking order. The Disciplinary Authority had considered the entire matter and passed Ext. P4 order. In Ext. 7. Now I shall consider the last contention that the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the higher authority did not apply their mind and their orders are not speaking. Ext. P4 order is a speaking order. The Disciplinary Authority had considered the entire matter and passed Ext. P4 order. In Ext. P5 appellate order the punishment was reduced even though finding of guilt by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority were upheld. Exts. P7 and P9 were passed by the revisional authority agreeing with Ext. P5. Now it is settled law that when disciplinary authority and appellate authority agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer, it is not necessary for giving detailed reasons as to why they agreed with the same, as held by the Apex Court in G.M. (Personnel Wing), Canara Bank and another v. Raja Rao (2001 II LLJ 819). See also Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana (111987 Lab IC 1890 SC). 8. There is only limited scope in interfering with disciplinary action. Judicial review cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction. After considering large number of decisions a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India ((1995) 6 SCC 749) held as follows : "A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty….." The penalty imposed in this case also cannot be said to be shocking . Therefore, on this ground also, I see no reason to interfere with the matter. 9. Petitioner is a member of Police force. Strict discipline is necessary. If he during duty time abuse public, that too after consuming liquor it is a very serious misconduct. Here punishment imposed is only withholding of increments for two years with cumulative effect. I see no ground to interfere with the matter in a proceeding under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The Original Petition is, therefore, dismissed.