ORDER : Petitioner has been imposed with punishment of compulsory retirement from service vide order dated 09.09.2009 passed by Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, UCIL, Jadugora. Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2009 and the revision has also been rejected vide order dated 23.02.2010. Petitioner aggrieved with all these three orders has approached this Court. 2. Heard the parties and perused the documents on record. 3. The brief fact which has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has joined his service in the year 1997. He had departmentally been proceeded by serving a memorandum of charge dated 02.06.2009 wherein the allegation has been leveled for taking liquor and using abusive language to the senior officers of the unit. 4. The enquiry was proceeded in which petitioner had participated. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has not considered all aspect of the matter. The punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed merely on the basis of statements of witnesses. The Enquiry Officer has come to a finding with respect to proving of charge which is not based on any expert view regarding the allegation of taking liquor. 5. The disciplinary authority without considering all those aspects of the matter which the petitioner had brought before the Enquiry Officer has given a punishment of compulsory retirement, which is harsh. It has been further submitted that even, the appellate authority and the revisional authority have not considered all aspects of the matter and the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has been provided all opportunity of being heard. The Enquiry Officer has come to a definite finding on the basis of the depositions of six witnesses, the materials on record which were produced before the Enquiry Officer by way of exhibits. The Enquiry Officer has given a definite finding with respect to proving of charge. 7. He has further submitted that since there is concurrent findings of three authorities based upon the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and sit like an appellate Court. 8. The Enquiry Officer has given a definite finding with respect to proving of charge. 7. He has further submitted that since there is concurrent findings of three authorities based upon the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and sit like an appellate Court. 8. After hearing both the parties at length and perusing documents on record, I find that the Enquiry Officer has examined altogether six witnesses, who have supported the case with regard to charge leveled against the petitioner. They said that the petitioner was in drunken stage. All of them also said that petitioner had used abusive language against higher officials. From perusal of enquiry report, it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer has given an opportunity to petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer after discussing all aspect of the matter has come to a definite finding that the petitioner was in drunken stage and also come to a finding on the basis of the statements made by the witnesses that the petitioner had used abusive language. 9. The disciplinary authority has accepted enquiry report and thereafter providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner came to finding that it is not expected from a member of disciplined force to use liquor, be in the drunken stage and use abusive language towards the senior officers of the unit which is a gross misconduct and the conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of the government servants. 10. The disciplinary authority in exercise of power conferred under rule 34(iii) has imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity with effect from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner has preferred appeal as also revision before the authorities who have also taken into consideration the entire materials on record and have given findings by confirming the order of punishment. 11. So far as the contention of petitioner with respect to quantum of punishment is concerned, the disciplinary authority has taken this aspect and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity with effect from the date of receipt of this order. 12. 11. So far as the contention of petitioner with respect to quantum of punishment is concerned, the disciplinary authority has taken this aspect and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity with effect from the date of receipt of this order. 12. It is settled proposition of law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot exercise the power to reappraise the evidence and disturb the fact findings given by the four consecutive authorities including the Conducting Officer. In State Bank of Hyderabad & Another Vs. P. Kata Rao, [ (2008) 15 SCC 657 ], at para 18 and 19, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as follows:- “18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment. ……….. 19. We are not unmindful of different principles laid down by this Court from time to time. The approach that the court’s jurisdiction is unlimited although had not found favour with some Benches, the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality, however, had not been deviated from.” 13. In view of the above submission, I find no merit in this case. 14. Hence, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.