ORDER : The respondent no.1/writ petitioner, who was at the material point of time holding the post of Assistant Commandant with Central Industrial Security Force was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement on the basis of finding in a departmental proceeding. The proceeding was started on the basis of complaint by a lady constable of the same force who alleged molestation by the respondent/writ petitioner. Stand of the respondent-writ petitioner in the departmental proceeding was that he was led into a trap as he was asked by the complainant to visit her quarter through a telephonic call. She sought his assistance for her son’s ailment. There was a parallel criminal case but the final report in that case has been submitted by the Law Enforcement Agencies in which nothing was found against the petitioner and the same has been accepted by the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction. So far as departmental finding is concerned, the learned First Court found following deficiencies on the part of the authorities. These have been recorded in the judgment under appeal. The learned First Court held and directed:- 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and on close and objective scrutiny of the documents on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to following facts and reasons: (i).In the case at hand, the petitioner while posted as Assistant Commandant in the State of Assam was implicated in a case of molestation on the basis of which a complaint was made by one lady constable-Sarita Das. Pursuant thereto a criminal case was also instituted under Section 354 and 358 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, in the criminal case, final report was submitted, in which, nothing was found against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, a detailed enquiry was done and in the finding it has specially been stated that the Board has no doubt that the some disgruntled Sub-Inspectors have hatched a conspiracy against the petitioner, which has been conclusively proved. Besides that the medical report says that no act of molestation was committed to lady constable Sarita Das. In the enquiry report, it has further come to the surface that so far as attempt of molestation by petitioner is concerned, it could not be established. Besides that the medical report says that no act of molestation was committed to lady constable Sarita Das. In the enquiry report, it has further come to the surface that so far as attempt of molestation by petitioner is concerned, it could not be established. But basing on an solitary ingredient that since he visited the complainant in the midnight without informing anybody in the Unit raises an element of doubt about his intention, punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioner. (ii).Even otherwise, the respondents-authorities had also proceeded departmentally against the complainant-Sarita Das and memo of charge was served upon her stating therein that by making a telephonic call to the petitioner on the pretext of her son’s illness, she made a conspiracy along with other disgruntled employees and trapped the petitioner and made false allegation of an extremely heinous crime like attempt to rape and the said charge have been proved, hence, the respondents-authorities finally vide order dated 29.10.2010 dismissed her from services. Hence, when the very basis of complaint is found to be false, the impugned punishment has no leg to stand. (iii).Further, it appears that prior to infliction of punishment, copy of opinion of UPSC has not been served upon the petitioner, which is a statutory requirement but the said copy of the opinion of the Commission has been served upon the petitioner along with the impugned order, therefore there has been violation of non-supply of opinion of UPSC prior to infliction of punishment. Furthermore, the fact that lady constable has been dismissed from services for the reasons as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph was not on the table of UPSC. In that view of the matter for the ends of justice the matter need re-consideration by the disciplinary authority. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 31.03.2009 pertaining to award of penalty of compulsory retirement is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to take a decision afresh in accordance with law and taking into account the observations made by this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 2. This decision is under challenge before us. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 2. This decision is under challenge before us. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Union of India and CISF has argued that the learned First Court erred in law in enquiring into the facts on which there was specific finding in the departmental proceeding and this constituted re-appreciation of evidence by the Writ Court which is impermissible in law. He has further brought to our notice that the CISF authorities had proceeded against the complainant lady constable also and order of dismissal was awarded against her but that order was set aside by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court at Guwahati in W.P.(C) No.6403 of 2011 in a judgment delivered on 3rd April, 2014. 3. On the aspect of re-appreciation of evidence, there is no absolute bar on the Writ Court in making an enquiry on factual aspects if the conclusion of the authorities on the basis of factual enquiry is found to be perverse. We have already quoted the relevant passage from the judgment in which the observations of the learned Single Judge appear. 4. We do not find learned Single Judge took into consideration any irrelevant factor or any relevant material was ignored in coming to the conclusion for remitting the matter to the authorities. As regards quashing of the dismissal order of the complaining lady constable, that factor was not brought to the notice of the learned First Court by either of the parties. But even if that factor is taken into consideration now by us, we do not think we shall come to a conclusion different from that arrived at by the learned Single Judge. We hold so factoring in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has remanded the matter to the disciplinary authorities for deciding the matter afresh. The fact of quashing the dismissal order of the complaining lady constable may also be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while deciding the matter afresh. Dismissal of the lady constable was not the only factor considered by the learned First Court. The learned First Court had examined the finding of Enquiry Board as also the enquiry report any came to its finding in the judgment under appeal. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned First Court. 6. Dismissal of the lady constable was not the only factor considered by the learned First Court. The learned First Court had examined the finding of Enquiry Board as also the enquiry report any came to its finding in the judgment under appeal. 5. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned First Court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has also brought to our notice an order passed on 3rd January, 2018 in this appeal itself in which the readiness of the appellant to pay the admitted dues of Rs.7,80,653/- to the respondent no.1 was recorded. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that his client is ready with the cheque for the said amount and the CISF authorities shall hand over the cheque to the respondent-writ petitioner within a period of fortnight. In view of this submission, no further order is warranted on that count. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. The I.A. No.1034 of 2017 shall accordingly stand disposed of.