Massodi, J.— 1. Appellant was vide order dated 17th July, 1993 removed from service on the charges that he on 17th May 1992 altercated with his colleague Nk. Kedar Nath Singh No.680384116 and physically assaulted him. 2. He questioned the order dated 17th July, 1993 in appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF Bhubaneshwar. He also questioned the order dated 17th July, 1993 in a writ petition before High Court of Delhi. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to take afresh decision in the matter having regard to outcome of his appeal. The appellate authority held the charge, charge of altercation to have not been found proved. However finding on second charge i.e., physical assault was maintained. 3. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 25th March, 2008 maintained the punishment even on the basis of finding returned on the second charge i.e., one alleging physical assault on Nk. Kedar Nath Singh. The aforesaid order was again called in question in an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority modified the punishment and converted 'Removal from Service' to 'Compulsory Retirement with Service Gratuity'. The appellant's further challenge to the order of Appellate Authority before the Revisional Authority did not meet any success. 4. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.11.2008 and the Revisional Authority dated 28.10.2009 were questioned before this court in writ petition being SWP No. 2113/2009 on the grounds that "Compulsory Retirement" was not prescribed as a punishment under Section 11 of CRPF Act and therefore could not be imposed on the appellant and that the finding returned on the charge alleging assault on Nk. Kedar Nath Singh was not based on any evidence and therefore perverse. 5. The writ court did not find any merit in the writ petition. It was held that the ground urged in the writ petition as regards permissibility of imposing "Compulsory Retirement" was not made unmindful of Rule 27 of CRPF Rules. The appellant was held to have been provided adequate opportunity to contest the charge and the grievance that the finding returned was not based on evidence or returned without affording appellant an adequate opportunity to project his stand, to be devoid of any substance. 6. The writ court judgment dated 29.03.2012 is questioned in the present appeal on the grounds similar to the grounds urged in the writ petition. 6. The writ court judgment dated 29.03.2012 is questioned in the present appeal on the grounds similar to the grounds urged in the writ petition. 7. We have gone through the appeal, the writ court order as well the writ record and heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The writ court judgment is well reasoned and deals with all the grounds urged in the writ petition. There is no scope for any disagreement with the writ court that "Compulsory Retirement" is one of the punishment that can be imposed under CRPF Act and Rules made thereunder and that Section 11 of CRPF Act is not to be read in isolation but conjointly with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules. There is no reason to conclude that finding returned on the charge alleging assault on Nk. Kedar Nath Singh is perverse or based on no evidence. The matter has been making rounds of law courts and different authorities under CRPF Act for over 20 years and findings recorded have been examined and re-examined a number of times. The writ court was right in declining indulgence as the appellant failed to make out a case, warranting exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. For the reasons discussed, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.