JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 26.08.2008, whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from services and also for quashing order dated 14.11.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 2. The factual matrix, bereft of unnecessary details, in a nutshell is that the petitioner, being a constable in C.R.P.F., while posted at Teliamura (West Tripura), was served with a letter of suspension dated 01.10.2007 on the allegation that he physically assaulted one constable, namely Birendra Yadav with Khukhari resulting into injury on his left palm. Thereafter, memo of charge dated 03.12.2007 was served upon the petitioner, in which, three charges were levelled against the petitioner. Charge No. 1 speaks that in a drunken condition, he made quarrel with another constable, Birendra Yadav and threatened him showing service rifle. Charge No. 2 says that in drunken condition, he assaulted Birendra Yadav with Khukhari resulting into cut injury on his hand and Charge No. 3 says that the petitioner left his duty without substituting other constable on his place and thereby committed offence under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his defence statement on 12.12.2007 stating that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence. After submission of defence statement, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who enquired into the matter and found charge no. 1 partly proved, charge no. 2 to be totally proved and charge no. 3 was found not proved. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.08.2008 passed the impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement from services, which was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer has examined altogether seven witnesses. P.W. 2, Prahalad Singh, in his statement has in unequivocal terms has stated that the petitioner was not in drunken condition and he never showed his service rifle to Birendra Yadav and he further deposed that the petitioner did not vacate the duty post without substituting anybody. He further deposed that Birendra Yadav is an indisciplined and non-co-operative person. P.W. 2, Prahalad Singh, in his statement has in unequivocal terms has stated that the petitioner was not in drunken condition and he never showed his service rifle to Birendra Yadav and he further deposed that the petitioner did not vacate the duty post without substituting anybody. He further deposed that Birendra Yadav is an indisciplined and non-co-operative person. P.W. 3-Revan Sidappa, in his statement, has specifically stated that he had not seen the petitioner in drunken condition in his duty. P.W. 4 also stated that he has not seen the petitioner in a drunken state and he took charge of duty from the petitioner. P.W. 6 also stated that neither the petitioner was in drunken condition nor vacated his duty post. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was also examined by the Enquiry Officer and he stated before the Enquiry Officer that during the duty period, he had not consumed liquor but after completion of duty he had taken liquor and there was some altercation between him and Birendra Yadav. He further stated that on 30.09.2007, Birendra Yadav abused the petitioner with filthy language and had also assaulted him and only thereafter the petitioner threatened Birendra Yadav by picking a Khukhari and during that period Birendra Yadav caught hold of Khukhari and sustained injury. It is submitted that petitioner had accepted his mistake but he had never assaulted Birendra Yadav with Khukhari. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is proved case that there was some altercation between the petitioner and Birendra Yadav but no proceeding was initiated against Birendra Yadav and only the petitioner has been made scapegoat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is no conclusive finding that petitioner was in drunken condition and did not leave his duty before time, the impugned punishment awarded to the punishment is fit to be quashed and set aside. 4. Canvassing his argument, basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner himself has admitted his involvement in the incident causing injury to Birendra Yadav and Reven Siddapa. Furthermore, the petitioner has also requested to revoke his suspension stating that he will never repeat such mistakes, thereby clearly accepted that he has committed a mistake. Even, the petitioner in his statement, at Annexure 3 to the writ application, has also admitted his mistake. Furthermore, the petitioner has also requested to revoke his suspension stating that he will never repeat such mistakes, thereby clearly accepted that he has committed a mistake. Even, the petitioner in his statement, at Annexure 3 to the writ application, has also admitted his mistake. Out of the three charges, charge no. 1 has been partly proved, charge no. 2 has been fully proved and only charge no. 3 has not been proved, hence, taking into consideration all the facts, the disciplinary authority has awarded just punishment, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of punishment of compulsory retirement from service, confirmed by the appellate authority do not warrant any interference due to the following facts reasons and judicial pronouncements : (i). Admittedly, while being posted in CISF Unit, Teliamura (West Tripura), a memo of charge was serve upon the petitioner containing three charges. Part of Charge no. 1 that the petitioner was in drunken condition is proved. Charge No. 2, which says that the petitioner in drunken condition assaulted Birendra Yadav with Khukhari resulting into cut injury on his hand has been fully proved. Only Charge No. 3, which says that the petitioner left the post without substituting another constable has not been proved. Considering the proven charges, the disciplinary authority has imposed the impugned punishment. Furthermore, in the instant case, the petitioner himself has admitted that he had altercation with Birendra Yadav and he was possessing the Khukhari and threatened him with Khukhari and on protest Birendra Yadav got injury with Khukhari. (ii). Moreover, in the instant case, there has been no procedural irregularity so far as conducting of departmental proceeding is concerned. (iii). In the case in hand, in view of the seriousness of allegation and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and moreover the fact finding given by the enquiry officer based on the material on record cannot be interfered with, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 , specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below: “15. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 , specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below: “15. 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 on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate 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 ………” Applying the aforesaid principles of Hon’ble Apex Court, as indicated hereinabove, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment. 6. As a cumulative effect of the facts and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 26.08.2008, whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from services and order dated 14.11.2008, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, do not warrant any interference of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.