JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner, a police constable, was departmentally proceeded for the following charges: (1) He assaulted sepoy Kapildeo Mahto on 19/01/1991 (2) He abused the Company Commander. (3) He got himself admitted in Sadar hospital, Madhubani on 30/01/1991 without obtaining Command Certificate. (4) He instituted a criminal case against sepoy Kapildeo Mahto without obtaining permission of the Commandant, and (5) He did not report at Battalion Headquarters as per the Command Certificate issued on 09/02/1991 and remained absent till 16/10/1991. 2. The Inquiry Officer after holding enquiry held the petitioner partially guilty for the charge No. 1, i.e. regarding assault on sepoy Kapildeo Mahto and with regard to the charges 2 to 5, the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner, guilty for the said charges. Pursuant to the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order as contained in Annexure-3 holding the petitioner guilty for all the charges 1 to 5 and thereby considering the seriousness of the charges against the petitioner, who being a member of the police force was not expected to act and behave in such a manner as established against him in the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. the Commandant, Bihar -Military Police, BMP-3, Govindpur, Dhanbad, dismissed the petitioner from the service. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, i.e. the DIG vide his order as contained in Annexure-4 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by a reasoned order. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Director General of Police but the same was also rejected by a detail order as contained in Annexure-5. 4. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Inquiry Officer held the petitioner partially guilty for the charge No. 1, i.e. with regard to assault made by him to sepoy Kapildeo Mahto but the Disciplionary Authority held him fully guilty for the said charge after disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner was not legal and valid in view of the decision in the case of "Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra Reported in ". 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Kumar also tried to assail the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority on the ground that the authorities concerned did not appreciate the evidence and the facts in its right perspective. 6. In view of the fact that the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have concurrently come to the finding of fact on the basis of the evidence on record that the charges against the petitioner was fully proved and, therefore, in my view, those concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed by this Court in its writ jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence. Therefore, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard cannot be accepted and hence is rejected. 7. So far as the decision in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra I (supra) of the Supreme Court is concerned, it appears that the Apex Court has held that when the Inquiry Officer made a report in favour of the delinquent and the Disciplinary Authority is proposing to differ with the said findings of Inquiry Officer then he has to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent, before recording his conclusion. The said decision of the Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer has not given any finding in favour of the petitioner. As a matter of fact so far as the charge No. 1 is concerned, the Inquiry Officer has held that the petitioner as well as the sepoy Kapildeo Mahto both were guilty for the charge. This does not mean that the Inquiry Officer has found the petitioner not guilty for the said charge. Though in his finding the Inquiry Officer has stated that the petitioner was partially guilty for the charge No. 1 but the Disciplinary Authority has held the petitioner to be wholly guilty for the said charge. 8. I do not find any illegality or irregularities in the said finding of the Disciplinary Authority. From the impugned order of the Revisional Authority, i.e. the Director General of Police, it appears that he has also agreed that the petitioner as well as the sepoy Kapildeo Mahto both were guilty for assault on each other. 8. I do not find any illegality or irregularities in the said finding of the Disciplinary Authority. From the impugned order of the Revisional Authority, i.e. the Director General of Police, it appears that he has also agreed that the petitioner as well as the sepoy Kapildeo Mahto both were guilty for assault on each other. This grievance of the petitioner that no action has been taken against Kapildeo Mahto has no leg to stand because from the order of the Director General of Police as contained in Annexure-5, it appears that the action against the sepoy Kapildeo Mahto was also initiated. 9. In view of my discussions and findings above, I hold that there is no scope of interference by this Court. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismissed.