ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Sector, Patna, whereby he has rejected the revision petition and held that punishment of dismissal from service is the appropriate punishment imposed upon the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner at the relevant time was a constable in C.I.S.F. In 1992 he was served with a memorandum of charges for holding an enquiry under Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 1969. There were two charges levelled against the petitioner. First charge was that on 11/12.2.1992 the petitioner was assigned to C shift duty from 21.00 hrs. to 05.00 hrs. at Watch Tower No. III of B Plant and he was sitting and dozing in front of small fire which amounts to negligence of duty within the meaning of Section 18 of CISF Act, 1968. The second charge was that at about 00.20 hrs. he assaulted Inspector/Exe T. Chakraborty who has found him sitting and dozing while on duty which amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Section 18 of the said Act. In the departmental inquiry, both the charges were proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service. Departmental Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Petitioner, thereafter, challenged the said dismissal by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 11947 of 1997 (P). Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set-aside the order of dismissal and directed the disciplinary authority to inflict a lesser punishment upon the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondent-CISF challenged the said judgment by filing L.P.A. No. 646 of 2002. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However, the Division Bench gave liberty to the petitioner to file revision before the Inspector General, C.I.S.F. who will consider the question of quantum of penalty, vis-a-vis the seriousness or gravity of the charge. Petitioner, thereafter, filed revision and the same was dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contended that the punishment by way of dismissal from service is quite disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that petitioner has completed 12 years of satisfactory service and there was nothing adverse against him at any point of time. 4. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contended that the punishment by way of dismissal from service is quite disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that petitioner has completed 12 years of satisfactory service and there was nothing adverse against him at any point of time. 4. Firstly, I would like to refer para-3 of the judgment passed by the Division Bench which reads as under : "3. In so far as the second issue relating to the gravity of the charge or its seriousness, vis-a-vis the penalty imposed is concerned, in a disciplined Force, whether the act of sleeping/dozing off while on duty is so serious and grave that it warrants removal from service is an issue which should have been best left to be decided by the appropriate authority of the force itself. The learned Single Judge, therefore, once again erred in deciding himself that the penalty of dismissal was not commensurate with the seriousness or the gravity of the charge." 5. Division Bench further disagreed with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that there was perversity in the finding of the disciplinary authority. 6. The main question that falls for consideration is whether the punishment of dismissal from service is commensurate with the seriousness or the gravity of the charges. The charges levelled against the petitioner are prima facie of serious nature. The constable in a police force is not only supposed to be very- very diligent in duty but also supposed to be most disciplined and obeying the command of his immediate boss. Recently, in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade, , the Supreme Court held that use of abusive language by the workman against the superior officer is a serious case of indiscipline and punishment of dismissal for suing of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate. Similar view has been taken in the case of M.P. Electricity Board v. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, . 7. Besides the above, it is now well-settled that once charges have been proved and punishment is imposed upon the employee, the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot reduce the quantum of punishment taking a sympathetic ground. In the case of Union of India and Ors. 7. Besides the above, it is now well-settled that once charges have been proved and punishment is imposed upon the employee, the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot reduce the quantum of punishment taking a sympathetic ground. In the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Narain Singh, 2002 AIR SCW 2172, it was held that in case of dismissal from service on the proof of misconduct the High Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment merely because the person against whom the penalty is imposed is a poor person and shall be deprived of his livelihood. Similarly, in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar, 2002 AIR SCW 944, the Supreme Court reiterated that punishment of dismissal from service cannot be interfered with unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court. 8. For these reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner. 9. This writ petition is dismissed.