JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 28.1.2000 passed by the Commandant, Disciplinary Authority, RSP, Rourkela by which punishment of withholding of increment for a period of three years having its effect to postpone further increments of pay has been inflicted. The appellate order dated 18.7.2000 passed by the D.I.G., CISF Unit, RSP, Rourkela whereby the order of the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by rejecting the appeal. 2. Facts of the case, as has been pleaded by the petitioner in the writ petition, is that while the petitioner was functioning as constable in C.I.S.F. Unit, RSP, Rourkela was earmarked for assembly election duty and he was relieved from ‘A’ shift duty at about 11.30 hours on 2.3.1995 with direction to report to BHM at about 14.00 hours at Bishra camp for briefing parade but he absented himself without any permission. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding has initiated after the petitioner was reinstated in the service in the light of the order passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 3226 of 1995. The charge has not been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer. Finding of the Enquiry Officer has not been accepted by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after following the due procedure, has imposed punishment of withholding of increment for a period of three years which will have the effect of postponing further increments of pay which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the orders on the ground that the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are perverse since the ground of medical ailment has not been taken into consideration in right perspective. He submits that the petitioner has produced cogent evidence to satisfy the enquiry officer that on that date he was ill and the enquiry officer has accepted the evidence, but the disciplinary authority has not accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment. He further submits that if any punishment will be imposed on the basis of the perverse finding, the punishment will be said to be illegal and accordingly sought for quashing of the order of punishment as well as its appellate order. 4. He further submits that if any punishment will be imposed on the basis of the perverse finding, the punishment will be said to be illegal and accordingly sought for quashing of the order of punishment as well as its appellate order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the C.I.S.F. has submitted that it is a case of gross irregularities and dereliction of duty. The petitioner was given election duty on 2.3.1995 and for that he was relieved from duty at the schedule time in order to attend briefing parade at Bisra camp but he was found absent at election duty briefing parade. The petitioner immediately after two days has reported in the office and shown the reason of absence as his medical sickness and inability to proceed for election duty on that date again. The petitioner has left office without any prior permission of the competent authority and only in order to avoid election duty he has taken plea of ailment. Disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, he has been given due opportunity to defend wherein he failed to satisfy the authority that he was suffering from medical ailment since he has only given medical certificate which has been said to be afterthought. 5. So far as maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, learned counsel for the C.I.S.F. has submitted that the petitioner has not availed appropriate forum of revisional authority by filing revision before the appellate authority under the provisions of Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. The issue of availability of alternative remedy raised by learned counsel for the opposite parties, needs to be decided first. It is not in dispute that the remedy of statutory appeal or revision is to be exercised by the concerned delinquent employee. In the instant case, power of revision conferred upon the authority under the provision of Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001 which contains the provision to prefer revision within six months from the date of passing final order or within six months it can suo motu exercise by the superior authority. In the instant case, power of revision conferred upon the authority under the provision of Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001 which contains the provision to prefer revision within six months from the date of passing final order or within six months it can suo motu exercise by the superior authority. It is settled that in each and every case the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal or revision since this may impose restriction by the High Court. The case should not have been remitted to the revisional authority since the matter is of the year 2001 and as such it would not be appropriate to remit the matter after 16 years before the revisional authority to take decision on its own merit, hence this Court thought it proper and necessary to answer on its merit. 8. The admitted fact in this case is that the petitioner while working as constable in CISF Unit, RSP, Rourkela was earmarked for election duty on 2.3.1995 and was relieved from ‘A’ shift duty at about 11.30 hours to participate in the briefing parade at Bisra Camp but he left the parade and came only on 4.3.1995 at 1140 hours with the fitness certificate and requested for taking him on duty but he did not make any entry of his fitness because there was no medical rest entry of him in the company G.D. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally and asked to participate before the enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer has examined witnesses. The petitioner has submitted medical certificate to show that he fell sick on 2.3.1995 and as such could not reported on the briefing parade, hence absence was unintentional and beyond his control. The defence of the petitioner has been denied by the witnesses, that is, P.W.s.1 and 3. P.W.1 deposed: “P.W.1, SI/Exe. N.K. Roy Coy commandant ‘D’ coy, CISF Unit, RSP, Rourkela has stated it that constable N.I. Gazi was ordered to be separated from ‘A’ shift duty at 11.30 hrs for briefing at the Bisra camp for proceeding on election duty. In the evening a message was received from the ‘D’ coy CHM about the absence of constable N.I. Gazi in the briefing parade. In his place replacement was sent as per the message received from the control room. In the evening a message was received from the ‘D’ coy CHM about the absence of constable N.I. Gazi in the briefing parade. In his place replacement was sent as per the message received from the control room. Then constable N.I. Gazi had come to me with medical rest at the H.K. Gate but I had denied to any entry of his unfitness and had told him that he was included in the election coy as per the Election list. And I had told him that if he wants to any entry of his medical rest then he can make entry in the control room daily diary. But I had no information whether he had any entry about it there or not and he was detailed for duty continuously but he did not come for duty. G.D. Entry about his absence from duty was also made. After completion of his medical rest he came near me at the gate on 4.3.1995 at 1140 hrs with the fitness certificate and requested for taking him on duty. But I did not make any entry of his fitness because there was no medical rest entry of him in our company G.D. I had informed about it to my higher officers but no order was received about his joining. So I had denied him regarding making any G.D. Entry (of constable N.I. Gazi) on the back dates and about his fitness entry too. Due to this constable Gazi misbehaved with me and talked to me rudely and told it that do not talk to me like a child. I will make you stand in a single line in the court. At the time company writer constable K. Priya was also present there. I had informed about this to the higher officers and told to Constable Gazi to come on duty as per the duty chart but he continuously remained absent from duty from 2.3.1995 to 7.3.1995. P.W.3 Deposed: Constable K. Priya has stated it that he was working in RSP, Rourkela from July’94 to Juje’97 and was doing the duties of the Company Writer in the ‘d’ Coy. As per the order of the Coy Comdr on 1.3.1995 he had prepared a list of 32 CISF personnel for the Assembly election; 95 in which there was the name of Constable N.I. Gazi. As per the order of the Coy Comdr on 1.3.1995 he had prepared a list of 32 CISF personnel for the Assembly election; 95 in which there was the name of Constable N.I. Gazi. the information regarding this was sent to all concerned officers Vide letter No. CISF/RSP/D Coy/95-225 dated 1.3.1995. On dated 2.3.1995 Constable N.I. Gazi and all other named CISF personnel were told to report for briefing at 1400 hrs and Constable Gazi was left from the ‘A’ shift duty at 1130 hrs. But Constable Gazi was absent from the briefing parade. Information regarding this was sent to the Coy Commander on 2.3.1995 by the CHM and another name was sent to the Deputy Commandant/Hqrs in place of Constable Gazi, Constable Gazi was detailed for the night shift duty on the same day. But he never came to duty till 4.3.1995. He had come to the office of the Coy. Commander on 4.3.1995 at 1140 hrs and told it that he was on sick rest from 2.3.1995 to 4.3.1995 and so he may be taken on duty by making entries. But the Coy Commander told it that G.D. Entry cannot be made from a back date and advised it that you could come on duty as per the duty chart and your case of absence will be considered later on. But Constable Gazi did not obey this and shouted in anger that he should make the G.D. Entry now and do not talk childishly. If he did not allow him to join from the medical rest then he should give it in writing to him. And as long as you did not give it in writing he would not move. But no G.D. Entry of him was made.” The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the deposition of witnesses has found the charge not proved, but the disciplinary authority has not accepted the finding of the enquiry officer on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the deposition of witnesses of P.Ws. But no G.D. Entry of him was made.” The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the deposition of witnesses has found the charge not proved, but the disciplinary authority has not accepted the finding of the enquiry officer on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the deposition of witnesses of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and also not considered the fact that if the petitioner was actually fell sick he could have reported about his sickness and inability to proceed for election duty immediately after he was relieved from his duty, but he failed to do so and later on managed to obtain medical unfitness certificate for a period of two days to evade for proceeding on election duty as ordered even he failed to inform the P.W.1 N.K. Roy. According to the disciplinary authority, the enquiry officer has not considered this aspect of the matter in right perspective and as such, according to the considered view of this Court, the reason of difference of opinion with the finding of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report given by the disciplinary authority cannot be held to be illegal. The petitioner has been given due opportunity to give his reply with respect to the reason of difference of opinion with the findings of the enquiry officer which he has passed order of punishment on 28.1.2000 which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. 9. It is evident from the materials available on record that the petitioner was assigned with election duty and for that he was relieved to attend brief parade but he evaded to attend the camp and thereafter produced medical unfitness certificate on 4.3.1995. It is evident from the deposition of witness Mr. N.K. Roy, as quoted herein above, that the charges leveled against the petitioner has been corroborated and as such the disciplinary authority has rightly come to finding by giving difference of opinion with the finding of the enquiry officer. The petitioner, who is a member of the disciplined force, is not expected to absent from duty without permission of the competent authority and if such type of negligence will be allowed, discipline which is to be maintained by such disciplined force, will ultimately affect the entire establishment which will be detrimental to the interest for which the establishment has been established. This Court after considering the nature of duty and the conduct of the petitioner, is of the considered view that the finding given by the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be illegal, in consequence thereof, the punishment is also cannot be held to be illegal. Moreover, scope of this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited to interfere with the finding of the disciplinary authority that to when there is concurrent finding of the authorities. In this respect, judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P and Others Vrs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another, 2006 5 SCC 673 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that (it is settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.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. In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and Others Vrs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to laid down a guideline in order to make interference with the order of punishment which is being quoted herein below:- “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No.1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. The enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. The enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. The conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. The disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. The disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. The finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) Re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) Interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in a accordance with law; (iii) Go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) Go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) Interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) Correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) Go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” The fact of this case is not coming into the fold either of the situation as discussed in the judgment referred warranting interference of this Court. 10. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, accordingly the same is dismissed.