JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the final order dated 21.04.2003 passed by the Commandant, C.I.S.F pertaining to dismissal from services and subsequent order passed in appeal dated 16.08.2003 passed by the appellate authority and also the order of the revisional authority dated 10.05.2004, whereby the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority. 2. The factual matrix, as depicted in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed as Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force in the year 1985. In the year 2000, during the Assembly Election in Bihar State his unit was deputed on election duty by order dated 06.02.2000 passed by the respondent no.5 and during course of election Sri M. L. Meena, Inspector complained against the petitioner to the Dy. Inspector General, CISF Unit, H.E.C, Ranchi as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On the basis of the said complaint, a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner, exercising the powers conferred under Sub Rule 1 of Rules 30 of the CISF Rules, 1969 and the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect. Since, the incident took place within the jurisdiction of Bihar police, the officer in-charge Hatia Police Station wrote a letter to the Bihar Shariff Police for registration of the case. Accordingly, on 29.02.2000 an F.I.R was lodged by Sri M. L. Meena, Inspector before the Deep Nagar Police Station vide Deep Nagar P.S. Case No.29/2000. On 18.03.2000 a memorandum of charge was given to the petitioner for submission of his written statement within ten days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum. The petitioner submitted his reply refuting the allegations levelled against him, praying for exoneration from the said charges. The matter was enquired and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 29.03.2003. On the basis of the enquiry report, final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.04.2004 as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The order of the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.08.2003 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). On the basis of the enquiry report, final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.04.2004 as evident from Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The order of the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.08.2003 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner filed a review application before the competent authority enumerating the points and the revisional authority dismissed the said petition vide order dated 10.05.2004, vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that the criminal case instituted against the petitioner bearing Sessions Trial No.666/2000 under Section 307 I.P.C read with Section 27 of the Arms Act ended in acquittal by the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda. Being aggrieved by the order passed by disciplinary, appellate as well as the revisional authority, left with no alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner being constrained has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding were based on the same set of charges and petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case not on the mere technicalities, but on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the yardsticks in both the proceedings are distinct and different but the findings of the trial court ought to have a bearing on the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire proceeding is based on no evidence, as the departmental authority basing on a perverse enquiry report, passed the impugned order of punishment, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of punishment of dismissal from services is a major punishment, which is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and the same ought to be interfered with on the ground of doctrine of proportionality. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of punishment of dismissal from services is a major punishment, which is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and the same ought to be interfered with on the ground of doctrine of proportionality. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition, petitioner’s case be considered afresh, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 and G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in ( AIR 2006 SC 2129 ). 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been submitted that the disciplinary authority respondent no.4 on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner carefully examined the records available in his case vis-a-vis documentary evidences adduced by the witness during the course of departmental enquiry and considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, the competent authority has passed the final order, awarding him the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 21.04.2003 which is fair and justified. The appellate authority and the revisional authority after carefully considering the gravity of offence confirmed the order of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was charged under Rule 34 of CISF Rules 1969 (now amended as Rule 36 of CISF Rules-2001) for his misconduct in discharging of duty and not complying with the guidelines of election during the ‘Election Duty’ being a member of the disciplined Force. Neither the petitioner was charged under Section 307 of IPC nor he was enquired by the department for which he was under trial in the court and hence, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is fair, just and commensurate to the gravity of the proven misconduct committed by the petitioner. Moreover, CISF is an Armed Force of the Union where discipline is expected to be very high degree, but the petitioner acted in a manner, which rendered him unsuitable for retention in the Force. Moreover, CISF is an Armed Force of the Union where discipline is expected to be very high degree, but the petitioner acted in a manner, which rendered him unsuitable for retention in the Force. Any leniency in the instant case shown to the petitioner will be detrimental to the constructive development of the organization and also tarnish the image of the Force and it would amount to misplaced sympathy by the disciplinary authority. 6. Mr. Rajiv Sinha, A.S.G.I appearing on behalf of the respondents-U.O.I., apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit, vehemently objects for remitting the matter for reconsideration in view of acquittal of petitioner in the criminal case being a member of the disciplined Force. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I) In the instant case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner is that he fired one round upon Inspector/Exe. M.L. Meena willfully and intentionally from his Service Rifle 7.62 (B.A) bearing unit Butt No.176 Registration No.A-10006 issued to him during Election Duty. Fortunately, Inspector/Exe. M.L. Meena escaped unhurt, when he caught the barrel of the rifle and pointed the same towards the sky and the 2nd attempt of firing by the petitioner upon M.L. Meena was overpowered by other members of the Force present at the spot. Such heinous act on the part of the petitioner being a member of disciplined Armed Force of the Union like CISF amount to gross indiscipline, misconduct, dereliction to duty and disobedience of the guidelines of Assembly Election which have been proved. In consideration of records, evidences adduced during the course of departmental enquiry, statements of prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses, enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has awarded the penalty of dismissal from services for the proven act of misconduct. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of excessive or disproportionate punishment. Therefore, the case of the petitioner does not fall under the category of excessive or disproportionate punishment. Moreover, the petitioner being a member of the disciplined Force, ought to have discharged his duties as per the Conduct and Rules and slightest of indiscipline and misconduct, cannot be countenanced in a disciplined Force and any count of leniency shown to the petitioner, would amount to misplaced sympathy by the disciplinary authority. (II) So far as contention of the petitioner regarding acquittal in a criminal case is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Deputy Inspector General of Police and Another vs. S. Samuthiram reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 has been pleased to hold that acquittal in a criminal case does not entail in the reinstatement in services. (III) The High Court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally does not substitutes his views once decision taken by the disciplinary authority in the matter of quantum of punishment, unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct or the punishment is palpably excessive so as to prick the conscience of a prudent man. In the instant case, considering the gravity of misconduct vis-a-vis the supervening circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. (IV) The view of this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 (State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another) wherein specially at paragraph 15, it has been held as under: “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 ………” 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 21.04.2003 being confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority vide orders dated 16.08.2003 and 10.05.2004 respectively, do not warrant any interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed. 10. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 21.04.2003 being confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority vide orders dated 16.08.2003 and 10.05.2004 respectively, do not warrant any interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed. 10. However, dismissal of the writ application shall not preclude the respondent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 06.01.2006, alongwith enclosed photocopy of the judgment dated 17.11.2005 passed in S.T.No.666 of 2000, to pass an order in accordance with law, if not already passed.