JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. Mr. Aurobind Mohanty, Central Government Standing Counsel submits that he has filed memo of appearance on behalf opposite parties 1 to 4. Office is directed to trace out and bring on record. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 25.2.2003 passed by the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Patna by which order of punishment of compulsory retirement has been confirmed by the regional authority has approached this Court. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner who was performing his duty as Guard of C.I.S.F. Unit, NALCO, Damanjodi and detailed for ‘A’ shift duty from 05:00 hours to 13 hours on 12.2.2001 at Plant main gate collected money from the incoming trucks illegally. When checked a sum of Rs.130/- excess than the pocket money of Rs.10/- was found and recovered. 4. Accordingly, article of charge has been served on the petitioner directing to face regular disciplinary proceeding by appointing an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner has participated in the enquiry, witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, Enquiry Officer has found the charge proved against the petitioner and thereafter he referred before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after accepting the same has issued certain show cause with the proposed punishment, petitioner has given reply to the show cause and the disciplinary authority has not found satisfactory to the show cause reply and thereafter order of punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the disciplinary authority, has preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Eastern Zone and against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision against the penalty of compulsory retirement from service awarded by the as provided under the statute and the original authority has also confirmed the order of punishment vide order dated 25.2.2003, against which the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Grounds taken by the petitioner is that the order of punishment is disproportionate to the charges. The enquiry officer has conducted enquiry without appreciating defence of the petitioner and as such finding given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. It is submitted that on the basis of the perverse finding, order of punishment will be vitiated in the eye of law. 7. The enquiry officer has conducted enquiry without appreciating defence of the petitioner and as such finding given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. It is submitted that on the basis of the perverse finding, order of punishment will be vitiated in the eye of law. 7. The Enquiry Officer without any eyewitness to the occurrence has proved the charge against the petitioner, hence the order of punishment is absolutely improper and is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. On the other hand the opposite party has supported the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that the memo of charge has been issued against the petitioner against serious allegation of commission of corruption i.e. taking gratification from truck drivers and when pocket of the petitioner was searched, amount more than Rs.10/- which is permissible to a CISF personnel by way of pocket money, was found from the pocket of the petitioner and as such article of charge has been issued against the petitioner on the basis of such allegation. 9. Regular disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner has been provided with opportunity of hearing i.e. to make his defence, cross-examine witnesses, etc. and thereafter the Enquiry Officer after appreciating the submission of the petitioner, has found charge proved. 10. The finding of the Enquiry Office was forwarded before the disciplinary authority and after accepting it has issued second show cause notice to the petitioner, the petitioner has given due reply to the second show cause which has found to be dissatisfactory by the disciplinary authority and thereafter as provided under Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 the authority thought it proper to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. 11. The authorities have taken lenient view while passing order of punishment of compulsory retirement because the petitioner will get retirement benefits after order of compulsory retirement. 12. The petitioner has preferred appeal and revision before the appellate and revisional authorities, after appreciating defence of the petitioner, has found that the disciplinary authority has taken decision in right prospective. 13. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that concurrent finding of the disciplinary authority cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sitting as appellate authority to reappraise the evidence. 13. Further submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that concurrent finding of the disciplinary authority cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sitting as appellate authority to reappraise the evidence. On the basis of such submission, it has been submitted that the order impugned needs no interference by this Court. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 15. Admitted fact in this case is that the petitioner has been awarded compulsory retirement from service by the disciplinary authority and the same has been confirmed by the Inspector General, CISF. 16. Memorandum of charge has been issued against the petitioner for commission of taking gratification while on duty on 12.2.2001 at Plant main gate from the incoming trucks illegally. On the basis of such allegation when the petitioner’s pocket was searched out it was found in his pocket excess money of Rs.10/- which was permissible to keep by way of pocket money and accordingly article of charge has been framed against the petitioner. 17. The petitioner being found receiving illegal gratification while on duty, an enquiry was directed to be conducted by appointing Enquiry Officer before whom petitioner was directed to appear, petitioner had appeared and put his defence. The Enquiry Officer has taken statement of witnesses before whom the pocket of the petitioner was searched out and Rs.130/- was recovered. While the witnesses have been given statement in presence of the petitioner, which the petitioner has not objected, rather the petitioner has admitted this fact of commission of omission, the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the statements having been recorded by the witnesses, has found the charge proved and thereafter the Enquiry Officer has forwarded the same to the disciplinary authority who after its acceptance has issued second show cause notice to the petitioner which has been replied but not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority has taken decision to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. 18. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of compulsory retirement has challenged before the appellate authority by raising all points and the appellate authority has found the order of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner, the petitioner preferred revision as provided under the statute and the revisional authority has also found that the order of compulsory retirement is not illegal. 19. 19. Now the question of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, this has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of State of U.P. and others –vs- Raj Kishore Yadav and another, reported in (2006)5 SCC 673 wherein at paragraph-4 it has been held: “xxx It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. xxx” In the case of Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank –vs- D. M. Parmar, reported in (2011)15 SCC 310 at paragraph-18 Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “As has been held by this Court in the recent decision in Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh, (2010)11 SCC 233 , in which one of us (H. L. Gokhale, J.) was a party, as long as there are materials and evidence in support of the findings, the High Court cannot interfere with such findings in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xxx ” In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another –vs- Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 at paragraph-15 the Honble Supreme Court held: “The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment o merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions. xxx” In the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India, reported in (2012)13 SCC 142 at paragraph-58 Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “It is a settled proposition of law that the findings of an enquiry officer cannot be nullified so long as there is some relevant evidence in support of the conclusions recorded by the inquiry officer. xxx” In the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale v. Union of India, reported in (2012)13 SCC 142 at paragraph-58 Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “It is a settled proposition of law that the findings of an enquiry officer cannot be nullified so long as there is some relevant evidence in support of the conclusions recorded by the inquiry officer. xxx” In this case, nothing is given which can suggest that finding of the Enquiry Officer can be said to be unjust since based on some relevant facts. Hence, relating to the ratio relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to above, it cannot be said that finding of the Enquiry Officer which is the basis of imposing punishment upon the petitioner is improper. 20. Here in this case, there are four concurrent findings, right from the finding of Enquiry Officer up to the finding of the revisional authority. This Court cannot sit as appellate court to prove the factual facts and to disturb the fact finding that too in a case like corruption committed by the CISF constable. 21. All the authorities have considered all aspects of the matter. From perusal of revisional order this Court finds that all the 13 truck drivers/helpers have given their statement/written complaints at their own without compulsion in presence of the petitioner and the petitioner signed thereon without any compulsion. 22. Money was recovered by P.W.1 who is eyewitness of the incident of taking money by the petitioner. 23. Moreover, from perusal of the record and the order passed by the revisional authority where finding given by the Enquiry Officer has been discussed, it is settled that finding of Enquiry Officer cannot be nullified so long as there is some relevant facts in support of the conclusion recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 24. In this case the authority has taken a lenient view against the petitioner which cannot be said to be disproportionate punishment against the petitioner rather it seems reasonable considering the length of service of the petitioner. 25. In view of the fact that the petitioner being a member of disciplinary force has committed serious irregularities/misconduct of taking gratification from truck drivers for the purpose of which he has been deployed in the main gate of the Corporation for checking and as such he has failed in discharging official duty rather he has involved himself in getting gratification. 26. 26. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. 27. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.