ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30.06.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.), Patna whereby he has dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition and has affirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority had imposed upon the petitioner punishment of “stoppage of next increment for a period of two years, which will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.” 2. The petitioner was posted as an Assistant Sub-Inspector / Exe, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit RSP, Rourkela. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him with the issuance of chargesheet dated 10.02.1995 by the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, RSP, Rourkela, on the charge that he demanded illegal gratification from the contractors and he instructed his subordinate staff to collect illegal gratification from the contractors during the period 20.01.1995 to 27.01.1995 and pay the amount to petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after holding enquiry submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge and accordingly punishment of removal from service was awarded upon him vide an order dated 24.08.1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the D.I.G., RSP, Rourkela against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority. 3. A writ petition filed by the petitioner in Orissa High Court against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter, preferred Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India vide SLP (C) No. 20942/2003 before the Supreme Court which was disposed of with the following direction vide an order dated 09.11.2005:— “Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we think that it would be appropriate if the authorities grant an opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine P.W.-4, P. K. Nayak .Thereafter the authorities shall pass a fresh order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. However, because of the fact that we are granting an opportunity to cross-examine P.W. 4, P.K. Nayak, the appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages or continuation of service benefits. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. However, because of the fact that we are granting an opportunity to cross-examine P.W. 4, P.K. Nayak, the appellant shall not be entitled to any back wages or continuation of service benefits. After the cross-examination of P.W. 4, P.K. Nayak is complete, the concerned authorities shall pass a fresh order taking into account the materials already on record and to be brought on record by way of cross-examination of P.W. 4, P.K. Nayak. No further evidence shall be permitted to be adduced by the appellant. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 4. In compliance of the Supreme Court’s order, the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the said P.K. Nayak, P.W.-4. It seems that after recording the statement of the said P.K. Nayak, statement of one more witness i.e. E.K. Kutty was got recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the necessity of which arose because P.K. Naik in his statement before the Enquiry Officer recorded pursuant to order of the Supreme Court, controverted his earlier statement given in the departmental enquiry on 16.06.1995 and substituted a different fact in course of cross-examination. It appears that in his earlier statement recorded on 16.06.1995, the said P.K. Nayak had stated that the petitioner tried to collect rupees ten per truck from him for entry of the truck and that he was being harassed by the petitioner at the modernization gate due to refusal to give any money. He however, changed his version and deposed in his statement on 11/12.04.2006 in course of cross-examination that he was forced to give false complaint against the petitioner on the instruction of Inspector E.K. Kutty. After giving an opportunity of being heard, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer, modified the punishment of removal from service to “stoppage of next increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect” by an order dated 21.03.2007. The petitioner had preferred appeal against the said order dated 21.03.2007 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 05.06.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force. 5. The petitioner had preferred appeal against the said order dated 21.03.2007 which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 05.06.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Inspector General of Central Industrial Security Force. 5. From the order of the Revisional Authority i.e. 30.06.2008, it would appear that he has considered the totality of the circumstance in which P.W.-4 P.K. Nayak became hostile in course of his cross-examination, done pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court. The Revisional Authority considered the material on record including the written complaint dated 23.01.1995 given by one Contractor T. Singh wherein he had complained that the petitioner had demanded a sum of rupees ten per truck, but in course of departmental enquiry he became hostile and stated that he was misled by said P.K. Nayak who had insisted him to complain against the petitioner. 6. P.K. Naik in his earlier version before The Disciplinary Authority had deposed that the petitioner had demanded money. However, subsequently, he retracted from his earlier statement stating that he was forced to lodge complain against the petitioner by one Inspector E.K. Kutty. The Revisional Authority took into account the fact that P.K. Nayak had earlier made his statement on 16.06.1995 making allegation against the petitioner of demanding money whereas in his cross-examination, which was done in the year 2006 he stated that he had deposed at the instance of said inspector E.K. Kutty which he had never stated earlier in course of departmental enquiry. The authorities, it appears, considered the statement of other prosecution witnesses i.e. Head Constable P.C. Malla, P.W.-1 and Head Constable Dwarika Prasad P.W.-2 who had deposed that the petitioner had instructed them to collect money from contractor and to give him the amount for purchase of bicycle. 7. Assessing the chain of circumstances and the material on record the Revisional Authority did not consider it proper to interfere with the imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 8. From the order of the Revisional Authority, it appears that dealing with the plea that Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Inspector E.K. Kutty against the direction of the Supreme Court, the Revisional Authority ignored the statement of E.K. Kutty as recorded after cross-examination of said P.K. Nayak. 9. 8. From the order of the Revisional Authority, it appears that dealing with the plea that Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of Inspector E.K. Kutty against the direction of the Supreme Court, the Revisional Authority ignored the statement of E.K. Kutty as recorded after cross-examination of said P.K. Nayak. 9. From the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, it would appear that before passing their orders they have considered the documents and evidence on record of the disciplinary proceeding and after assessing and appreciating such evidence held the petitioner guilty of the grave misconduct. However, the Authorities took a lenient view and modified the order of punishment of removal from service to stoppage of next increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. 10. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority cannot be said to be perverse as it cannot be said that the findings are without any material. They have considered the material and have reached to a final conclusion. This Court in such circumstance, does not find any reason to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidence available on the records of the disciplinary proceeding particularly in view of the nature of punishment imposed upon him. 11. I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed. ?