JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Challenging the impugned order dated 08.11.2001 passed by the Commandant-respondent No. 3, pertaining to removal from services and the order dated 15.02.2002 passed by the appellate authority i.e. D.I.G of Police, respondent No. 2, confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the present writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for quashing of the aforesaid orders along with the prayers for reinstatement in services with back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as described in the writ application, is that after successful completion of written, medical and physical test petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable in the year 1993. After joining the said post, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities and the services of the petitioner has also been appreciated by the concerned respondents because the petitioner has been awarded few certificates for meritorious services. But, all of a sudden, on 26.06.2001 memo of charges, vide Annexure-2 was issued to the petitioner. On receipt of the said charges, petitioner submitted his reply as evident from Annexure-3. Thereafter, enquiry officer was appointed and matter was enquired into and after conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner was given opportunity to file his statement against the enquiry report which the petitioner did. However, the respondent No. 3 basing on the findings of the enquiry officer imposed the punishment of removal from services with immediate effect vide memo dated 8.11.2001 as per Anneure-6 to the writ petition, which is impugned in the instant writ petition. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of removal of services also met the same fate vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order of punishment vide Annexures-6 and the order passed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-9, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that the impugned orders vide Annexures-6 and 9 have been passed with mala fide and oblique motive, at the instance of some interested persons/officials, which has resulted in petitioner being meted out with civil/evil consequences. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that the impugned orders vide Annexures-6 and 9 have been passed with mala fide and oblique motive, at the instance of some interested persons/officials, which has resulted in petitioner being meted out with civil/evil consequences. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that assuming the charges alleged against the petitioner have been proved by the enquiry officer, but the same appears to be grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and on the ground of doctrine of proportionality, the impugned orders passed by the respondents i.e. disciplinary as well as appellate authority ought to be interfered with. During course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 15 SCC 399 and has also referred to paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, so as to put forth his argument that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has received certain commendations for his good work but because of misconduct, major penalty of removal from services has been passed. But, considering the proven misconduct, the punishment appears to be harsh and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioner while posted at Area No. III of CISF Unit, BCCL Dhanbad, was issued with charge memorandum under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 and amended CISF Rules, 2003 by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad vide charge memorandum dated 26.06.2001. Article of charges in three counts were served on the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his written reply denying the charges levelled against him and, therefore, the disciplinary authority having found his reply not satisfactory, appointed enquiry officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry as per the laid down procedure in CISF Rules, 1969 and the Amended Rules 2003. After conducting departmental enquiry and statement of all listed prosecution witnesses, except P.W.4 as he could not attend the departmental enquiry despite of notice issued by the enquiry officer due to self sickness, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 25.09.2001 holding all the charges proved against the petitioner to the disciplinary authority. After conducting departmental enquiry and statement of all listed prosecution witnesses, except P.W.4 as he could not attend the departmental enquiry despite of notice issued by the enquiry officer due to self sickness, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 25.09.2001 holding all the charges proved against the petitioner to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, supplied a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner vide order dated 29.09.2001 giving him an opportunity to submit his representation against the enquiry report within 15 days, if he desired to do so. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation on 15.10.2001 against the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority found the enquiry as per the law in CISF Rules and no infirmity was noticed, after considering all aspects, evidence, findings of the enquiry officer and representation of the petitioner against enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the final order dated 08.11.2001 imposing the penalty of removal from services. The appellate authority after examining all aspects of the matter, passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 15.02.2002 dismissing the appeal. It has further been submitted that thereafter the petitioner did not prefer any revision petition before the revisional authority i.e. I.G., C.I.S.F against the departmental authority and the appellate authority so available to him. Further, it is also contended in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not exhausted departmental remedy available to him under Section 9(3) of CISF Act, 1968 by way of revision. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine being premature one. 5. Mr. Prashant Vidyathi, learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit. He has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2016 SC 3131 (Union of India and Ors v. Diler Singh) to support the impugned orders vide Annexures-6 and 9 to the writ petition. 6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference, due to the following reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I) Admittedly from the averments made in the writ petition, in the departmental proceeding there has been no procedural irregularities from its initiation till its culmination. Therefore, on this score no ground is made out to exercise the judicial review. (II) The charges on three counts, which were levelled against the petitioner have been proved in the enquiry report, therefore, the disciplinary authority taking into account the findings of the enquiry officer and on the basis of proved misconduct and more particularly the petitioner being a member of Arms Forces of the Union, where the standard of discipline and conduct of a member of Force is expected to be of a very high order, since the petitioner acted in utter disregard to the discipline of the Force and acted in a manner, which is highly unbecoming member of the Force, basing on the proved misconduct, major punishment of removal from services has been awarded to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority by exercising power under Rule 29(A) read in conjunction with Schedule II and Rule 31(B) of CISF Rules, 1969 imposed the punishment of removal from services with immediate effect and the appellate authority by analysing the evidences exhaustively did not interfere in the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, appeal petition of the petitioner was rejected. The appellate authority also considered the quantum of punishment and also opined that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is just and proper, keeping in view the proven misconduct. (III) So far as contention of the petitioner that though the charges have been proved but the punishment of removal from services under the obtaining factual matrix is harsh and shocking to the conscience, the punishment is disproportionate. But, since the petitioner was a part of the disciplined Force and the misconduct has been proven in the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, in this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2016 SC 3131 (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 22 observed that "test of proportionality has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386 , Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7 SCC 463 and Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (2006) 10 SCC 388 . It has been held that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. It has been held that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. When a member of the disciplined force deviates to such an extent from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner which is not conceived of, it is difficult to hold that the punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience." (IV) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. 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 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 ........." 7. As a logical sequitur to the aforesaid reasons and the judicial pronouncements, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by disciplinary as well as the appellate authority vide Annexures-6 and 9 to the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit, is dismissed.