ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.02.2009, passed by the respondent no.3-Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, in Revision Petition, whereby the prayer for modifying the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority has been rejected. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the respondent no.4-Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Forces, in Appeal no.V-11014/EZ/AD(ii)/AP/26/2008, by which the appellate authority has found the charges proved but modified the order from removal of service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules. Challenge has also been made to order dated 15.06.2008 passed by the respondent no.5-Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, by which the petitioner has been found to be guilty in the departmental proceeding, thereby inflicted the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect looking to the gravity of the misconduct. 3. The short facts of this case are that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Industrial Security Force (C.I.S.F.) on 25.09.1985 as Sweeper vide Serial no.854330399, was posted at C.I.S.F. Unit, C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, and was performing the duty accordingly. The petitioner was living outside the campus as on account of having not a family accommodation inside the campus and as such hired a private house for the residential purposes for himself and his family members. A complaint was made against the petitioner, making allegation that he was living outside the campus without any approval. Second allegation has been made that he was realizing the money from one Arbind Kumar, who was a dealer of petrol and diesel, claming to be a member of the Crime Branch and thereby he extracted Rs.1100/- and where-after after 15 days again demanded Rs.1000/- from said Arbind Kumar and thereby he has committed serious misconduct. Third charge has been made that on 11.10.2007 at 12:00 hour he has smashed the moped of Arbind Kumar at C.T.P.S., Chandrapura, was also instigating his wife to commit misbehave with said Arbind Kumar. Fourth charge has been made that the petitioner has refused to take charge-sheet dated 11.10.2007 and remained absent without proper permission from 13.10.2007. Fifth allegation has been made that the petitioner has already been punished on three occasions for minor misconduct. 4. Fourth charge has been made that the petitioner has refused to take charge-sheet dated 11.10.2007 and remained absent without proper permission from 13.10.2007. Fifth allegation has been made that the petitioner has already been punished on three occasions for minor misconduct. 4. It will be relevant to quote the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet, which are as follows:- ^^vkjksi&1 cy la[;k 854330399 lQkbZ deZpkjh misUnz jkor ¼fuyafcr½ dsvkSlqc bdkbZ lhVhih,l pUnziqjk eas fnukad 14-07-07 dks fu;fer LFkkukUrj.k ij vkj-,l-ih- jkmjdsyk ls fjiksVZ fd;k gS] vkSj fcuk vuqefr ds viuh ethZ ls dSvkSlqc bdkbZ ykbZu ls ckgj jg jgk gSA tks fd cy lnL; dk vuq'kklughu gksus dk izrhd gSA vr% vkjksi gSA vkjksi&2 cy la[;k 854330399 lQkbZ deZpkjh misUnz jkor ¼fuyafcr½ dsvkSlqc bdkbZ lhVhih,l pUnziqjk eas fnukad 08-09-2007 dks rsyh fuoklh vjfoUn dqekj tks isVªksy ,oa Mhty dk dkjksckj djrk gS dks jksddj rsy vius ?kj esa j[k fy;k vkSj vius dks Økbe dk vkneh crkdj pkj fnu ckn 1100@& :Ik;s dh ek¡x djus yxkA bl izdkj cy lnL; dk mDr d`R; ,d vuq’kkflr cy lnL; gksus ds ukrs drZO; ds izfr ?kksj dnkpkj ,oa vuq’kklughurk dk ?kksrd gS ftlls cy dh Nfo /kqfey gqbZ o dsvkSlqc tSls cy ds lnL; ls vuisf{kr gSA vr% vkjksi gSA vkjksi&3 cy la[;k 854330399 lQkbZ deZpkjh misUnz jkor ¼fuyafcr½ dsvkSlqc bdkbZ lhVhih,l pUnziqjk us fnukad 11-10-07 dks le; yxHkx 12-00 cts Qk;j LVs’ku ds lkeus Jh vjfoUn dqekj dk ,e&80 ctkt eksisM jftLVªs’ku la[;k ch-vkj-&20bZ-&9386 dks MaMk ls ihV dj rksM+ fn;k vkSj fxjk fn;k ,oa lQkbZ deZpkjh viuh iRuh dks mdlk jgk Fkk fd lHkh dks cnlywdh ds fy;s xyr rjhds ls iwfyl es a ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- djs tks fd cy lnL; dk dnkpkj ,oa vuq’kklughurk dk izrhd gSA vr% vkjksi gSA vkjksi&4 cy Øekad 854330399 lQkbZ deZpkjh misUnz jkor ¼fuyafcr½ us bl bZdkbZ }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k fuyacu vkns’k la[;k oh&15014@lhVhih,l@estj&6@2007&3325 fnukad 11-10-07 dks ysus ls bUdkj fd;k ,oa og fnukad 13-10-07 ls bdkbZ ykbZu ls fcuk fdlh iwokZuqefr ds vuqifLFkr gSA bl izdkj dk mijksDr d`R; vuq’kkflr cy dk lnL; gksus ds ukrs drZO; ds izfr ?kksj dnkpkj ,oa vuq’kklughurk dks iznf’kZr djrk gSA vkjksi&5 cy Øekad 854330399 lQkbZ deZpkjh misUnz jkor ¼fuyafcr½ dsvkSlqc bdkbZ lhVhih,l pUnziqjk dks vius lsok dky ds nkSjku fofHkUu vuq’kklughurk ds d`R;ksa ds dkj.k 03 ¼rhu½ ckj NksVh ltkvksa ls nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gSA blls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd og vuq’kklughu d`R; djus dk vkfn gks pqdk gSA vr% vkjksi gSA** 5. Whereafter, the petitioner was asked to give explanation, he submitted the explanation and enquiry was conducted against him in which altogether 11 witnesses have been examined including the person, who suffered on account of misconduct of the petitioner, namely, Arbind Kumar. After completion of enquiry, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report, which was given to the petitioner along with the show-cause, giving opportunity if he so like, he may file his comment. Where-after, final order dated 15.06.2008 (Annexure- 2) has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority for removal from service as all the charges made against him was found proved. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was considered by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, who vide order dated 30.09.2008, modified the order from removal of service to compulsory retirement with full pensionary benefits as admissible under the rules. The appellate authority taking totality to the facts and circumstances of the case though found charges proved, granted relief of compulsorily retirement by modifying the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The order of the appellate authority was challenged before the Revisional Authority, who refused to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority and found that the charges leveled against him were serious in nature, already the appellate authority has modified the order looking to the facts that the Sweeper is a lower paid staff. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity in holding the departmental inquiry as the petitioner was given all the opportunity to defend his case and the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report against the petitioner. But, with regard to charge no.1, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was residing outside the camp on account of non-availability of the family quarter in the camp, so the charge no.1 is completely misconceived and misdirected. Even ignoring that charge, but the rest charges are very serious in nature, where the allegation has been made that he has taken money from Arbind Kumar, who was dealer of patrol and diesel, claiming to be the member of the Crime Branch. At the same time, the second allegation has been made with regard to smashing the moped of Arbind Kumar and instigating his wife to misbehave with Arbind Kumar, is also very serious in nature. At the same time, the second allegation has been made with regard to smashing the moped of Arbind Kumar and instigating his wife to misbehave with Arbind Kumar, is also very serious in nature. The personnel of Police Force required to maintain the discipline, they are not required to commit such misconduct of extracting the money from business man, claiming to be the member of the Crime Branch. It has a direct nexus with the integrity and conduct of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on number of orders passed by this Court, which are as follows:- (i) C.W.J.C. No.1798 of 2009 (Shashi Kumar Uttam vs. The Union of India and Ors.) (ii) C.W.J.C. No.4813 of 2008 (Jagjit Singh vs. The Union of India and Ors.) (iii) C.W.J.C. No.16071 of 2008, 2015 (1) PLJR 4 (Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs. the Union of India and Ors.) (iv) C.W.J.C. No.9031 of 2008, 2013 (4) PLJR 551 (Jagbir Singh vs. The Union of India and Ors.) (v) C.W.J.C. No.4508 of 2009 (A.K. Pandey @ Ajit Kumar Pandey vs. The Union of India and Ors.) 8. In all the cases, the Court has taken view that when the proceeding has been conducted fairly and properly after giving proper opportunity to the delinquent to defend his case, in such circumstance, the Court should refuse to interfere with the order of punishment as the writ Court cannot act as an appellate Court but has to see whether proper procedure has been followed and sufficient material has been available for arriving to finding of misconduct inasmuch as the Court can only interfere in extreme cases when the punishment was so unreasonable and no reasonable person would pass such order, in such circumstance, the Court can interfere with the order of punishment. Reliance can be placed on the decis ion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur vs. Union Of India And Ors reported in 1987 AIR(SC) 2386 : 1987 PLJR(SC) 79. Reliance can be placed on the decis ion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Thakur vs. Union Of India And Ors reported in 1987 AIR(SC) 2386 : 1987 PLJR(SC) 79. However, facts of this case is quite different, in the present case, the petitioner has taken money from a business man, claiming himself to be a member of the Crime Branch though he was a member of the C.I.S.F., thereby cheated Arbind Kumar, which is very serious in nature, he has also smashed the moped on said Arbind Kumar and also instigated his wife to misbehave with said person. At the same time, the petitioner has already been punished three time for minor misconducts, are aggravating circumstance not mitigating circumstance. 9. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.