JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.3.2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General CISF Unit C.C.L Kargali by which the revision application has been dismissed and punishment of withholding next annual increment for one year with non-cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 2.12.2008 passed by Commandant, GISF Unit CCL Kargali by which appeal has been dismissed and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide final order dated 7.8.2008 confirmed. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 4.2.2008 at 5 O'clock to 13 O'clock in first shift the petitioner was on duty at Dhori Check-post with one constable Manik Lal Sen. When the petitioner was on duty he was illegally taking Rs. 10 from all the local trucks while taking entry pass at the Check Post. Further allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner gave Rs. 100/- to one Mukesh Bishad (Civilian) to keep with him and told him to further collect Rs. 10 from each of the truck and asked him to return the money to the petitioner after duty Mukesh Nishd illegally collected Rs. 10/- from the each truck and in that way he collected Rs. 200/- and caught with this money by constable Sanjay Kr.Pandey and constable Harendra Singh of Crime and Intelligence Branch. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid mis-conduct of the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted under Rule 36 of CISF Amended Rule and CISF Rule 2001 and charge sheet was served against the petitioner. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty and submitted a report accordingly. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any wrong and punishment order imposed against the petitioner may kindly be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner is involved in nine criminal cases and the same is pending against him. 7. Heaving heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going the case records, this court finds that charges against this petitioner are well founded and mis-conduct of the petitioner is serious in nature. No case is made out to interfere in the writ petition. 7. Heaving heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going the case records, this court finds that charges against this petitioner are well founded and mis-conduct of the petitioner is serious in nature. No case is made out to interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.