ORDER : 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner had approached the learned First Court being aggrieved with his dismissal order made after the departmental inquiry on the allegation of consuming alcohol and causing breach of peace using abusive language. The appellant at the material point of time was a Constable with Jharkhand Armed Police and his punishment came in consequence of an incident that took place on 8th June, 2008. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of having consumed alcohol and for using abusive language. The Disciplinary Authority confirmed the finding of the Inquiry Officer and imposed the aforesaid punishment, which was sustained by the Appellate Authority. The learned First Court found that the appellant had failed to make out a case for interference with the departmental authorities and the reasons given in the decision of the learned First Court were:- “(i) In the instant case, the charges pertains to consuming of alcohol while the petitioner was on duty in police station within Ramgarh district, thereby creating tense situation and causing breach of peace. From the enquiry report it transpires that the allegations levelled against the petitioner has been proved by some of witnesses but though some of the witnesses have not directly supported allegation/charges levelled against the petitioner but on overall perusal of the enquiry report it would be crystal clear that that the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority basing on the findings recorded by the enquiry report has passed the impugned order of punishment which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. Since there is no procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding, considering the gravity of charges coupled with proved misconduct, there is no scope for interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction. (ii) The case in hand from the record it appears that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice nor there has been any procedural irregularities nor the case of the petitioner is based on no evidence, so there is absolutely no ground to interfere in the impugned order of punishment. (iii) In view of the seriousness of the allegations and misconduct committed by the petitioner, and the concurrent finding given by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the impugned order. (iii) In view of the seriousness of the allegations and misconduct committed by the petitioner, and the concurrent finding given by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the impugned order. The view of this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and Another, (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.........” (iv) Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the decision cited by him is of no assistance because of the fact that the medical report, as has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit proves the charge of being under influence of liquor.” 3. Mr. Gadodia, learned Advocate for the appellant, has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Munna Lal vs. Union of India and Others, (2010) 15 SCC 399 in assailing in substance the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. His submission is that consumption of alcohol by the appellant was not proved. 4. We have been taken through the medical report which per se does not reveal any scientific test conducted on that count but there is observation in that report to the effect that alcoholic smell through mouth was found and the patient was slightly waddling gait. Consumption of alcohol however is not the only charge against the appellant. There is also allegation of using abusive language. The fact finding authority found the charges proved. 5. Mr. Gadodia wants us to re-appreciate the evidence on the aspect of proving of the charge of use of abusive language. But in this appeal we do not find that such course would be permissible as that would call for re-appreciation of evidence. There is also allegation of using abusive language. The fact finding authority found the charges proved. 5. Mr. Gadodia wants us to re-appreciate the evidence on the aspect of proving of the charge of use of abusive language. But in this appeal we do not find that such course would be permissible as that would call for re-appreciation of evidence. We accordingly affirm the decision of the learned First Court. 6. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. 7. The connected applications (I.A. Nos. 2499 and 6480 of 2018) shall also stand disposed of, as we have dismissed the main appeal.