JUDGMENT Ananda Sen, J. - In this writ application, petitioner prays for quashing the article of charges dated 13.03.2009 and order dated 08.07.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, C.I.S.F., inflicting punishment of removal from service without any benefits against the petitioner. The appellate order dated 19.08.2009 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal was rejected, is also under challenge. The order of the revisional authority dated 28.04.2010 has also been challenged in this writ application, which dismisses the revision application. Further orders dated 04.08.2010 and 16.01.2015 passed by the Director General, CISF, New Delhi upholding the order of removal is also challenged. A mandamus has been sought for to reinstate the petitioner in service after setting aside the impugned order. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in CISF and was posted in BCCL, Dhanbad. He was enrolled on 02.05.1989. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, who was a member of the CISF on the following charge: - Charge No.1 On 21.02.2009, the petitioner was guarding the coal dump and was on duty from 13.00 Hrs. to 21.00 Hrs (second shift). He was performing duty along with one Rajkumar. At about 16.05 Hrs., Inspector, while checking near his dump, asked Rajkumar to go and call this petitioner, but, this petitioner refused to leave his place where he was on duty. Charge No.2 On 23.02.2009 at about 04.40 Hrs. when the suspension order was to be served upon him. He refused to accept the same. Charge No.3 While on duty in Area IX on four different occasions for four different acts, he was punished four times, but, he did not mend himself. 3. On the aforesaid charges a departmental proceeding was initiated and an enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. During enquiry, the petitioner did not appear before the authority. As the petitioner did not appear, the enquiry proceeded exparte. Evidence of witnesses were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. On conclusion of the enquiry, the report was submitted finding the charges against the petitioner proved. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the delinquent employee and he was directed to submit his reply to the second show cause within 15 days. The delinquent also refused to accept the said report and the notice. On conclusion of the enquiry, the report was submitted finding the charges against the petitioner proved. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the delinquent employee and he was directed to submit his reply to the second show cause within 15 days. The delinquent also refused to accept the said report and the notice. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, considering the enquiry report and evaluating the same punished the petitioner with a punishment of removal from service without any benefits. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of removal, the delinquent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, vide order dated 19.08.2009, considered the appeal of the petitioner and also considering that he was punished earlier for some misconduct, dismissed the appeal. A revision was also filed. The revisional authority found that sufficient opportunity was given to the delinquent employee, but, he did not appear. He found the charges against the petitioner to be proved. He also found that the petitioner was awarded four different punishments for different misconducts in past and even he did not improve after giving chance. Thus, he has held that no fault can be found in the departmental proceeding or in the punishment nor the order of the appellate authority can be interfered with. 5. Challenging these orders, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case in the disciplinary proceeding. He submits that neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority considered the case of the petitioner in proper perspective. He submits that the enquiry was not fair and proper and there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is the case of the petitioner that on these grounds the impugned orders need to be set aside. He also submitted that the punishment inflicted does not commensurate to the charges framed against the petitioner. He contended that if the charges are carefully evaluated, one can very well conclude that no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that when no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner, punishment itself is bad and also the previous punishments could not have been considered. He submits that when the petitioner was on duty and was guarding a particular area, he should not have been called to report before the Inspector without sending any person as his reliever. It is submitted that when no misconduct has been committed by the petitioner, punishment itself is bad and also the previous punishments could not have been considered. He submits that when the petitioner was on duty and was guarding a particular area, he should not have been called to report before the Inspector without sending any person as his reliever. He submits that it was well within the jurisdiction of the petitioner to refuse as no reliever was sent to him and his primary duty was to guard the place where he was posted. He submits that if he would have gone to meet the Inspector, who called him, the place would have remained unguarded, which would have been fatal. He submits that the aforesaid fact was not considered by the authorities while inflicting punishment and while considering the appeal of the petitioner. He submits that on this basis, the writ application should be allowed and the petitioner should be reinstated. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that there is no procedural irregularity or illegality in holding the departmental proceeding. He submits that since the petitioner did not appear in the departmental proceeding, there was no other alternative but to proceed exparte. He submits that there is provision to proceed exparte against the delinquent if he chose not to appear in the proceedings. He submits that Rule 36(18)(e) of the CISF Rules of 2001 has been followed. It is submitted that even the petitioner refused to receive the memorandum of charge, which later on was pasted on the notice board. He submits that the petitioner did not accept the second show cause notice also. He submits that during the enquiry, the guilt of the petitioner was proved and thus, proper punishment of removal from service was inflicted. He submits that this Court exercising writ jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court and come to a different finding, especially when there is no procedural error. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 8. From the records, I find that basically there are three charges, which have been levelled against the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 8. From the records, I find that basically there are three charges, which have been levelled against the petitioner. One of the charge is, while the petitioner was on duty and was guarding a coal dump, he was called by the Inspector through a constable, but, he refused to leave his place where he was placed on duty and did not go to meet the Inspector. The second charge is that he refused to receive the suspension order. The third charge is nothing to do with the immediate misconduct of the petitioner, rather shows his previous misconducts for which he was punished. This third charge cannot by itself be said to be a misconduct, which can be a subject matter to initiate departmental proceeding, but, definitely can be considered for the purpose of awarding punishment if the other charges of indiscipline is proved. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to him and the proceeding was exparte. It is his case that the punishment was inflicted behind his back. He also contended that the appellate authority and the revisional authority have not considered his plea. 10. I find that the aforesaid plea of the petitioner has got no legs to stand. The petitioner was afforded several opportunities to appear in the enquiry proceedings, but he chose not to appear. When the delinquent chose not to appear inspite of several opportunities, it is well within the domain of the enquiry officer to proceed exparte. 11. So far as the claim of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner has not committed misconduct is concerned, I find that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an Appellate Court. Scope of judicial review in these type of cases is very limited. The Court cannot interfere with the findings of facts, based on evidence and cannot substitute its own independent findings. The decision is not be reviewed, rather, it is review of the decision making process. Where the findings of the disciplinary authority are based on some evidence, this Court cannot reappraise the evidence and substitute its own findings. A judicial review is not an appeal. 12. The decision is not be reviewed, rather, it is review of the decision making process. Where the findings of the disciplinary authority are based on some evidence, this Court cannot reappraise the evidence and substitute its own findings. A judicial review is not an appeal. 12. In this case, I find that the disciplinary authority, after a proper enquiry and taking evidence had concluded that the petitioner has committed misconduct. This finding is based on evidence. When a finding is arrived at on the basis of evidence, same cannot be said to be perverse. Thus, this Court sitting in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its own view by setting aside the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding, which is based on some evidence. 13. Thus, the only question now remains is whether the punishment is disproportionate to the charges. In this case, the petitioner has been removed from service without any benefit. This is a major punishment. I also find that on earlier four occasions for indiscipline, the petitioner was punished. Inspite of being punished on earlier occasions that too on four occasions, the petitioner did not mend himself. The petitioner is in the disciplined force where even a small instance of indiscipline cannot be accepted. An undisciplined person should not be allowed to be retained in a disciplined force. Removal from service is must in these types of cases. 14. In this case, removal from service is without any benefit, which means that petitioner will not get any monetary benefit for the service he has put in for the last twenty years. This removal is not only a death sentence in service law for the petitioner, but for the entire family, which has to suffer. Thus, this Court feels that removal from service, without any benefit, is very harsh punishment on the facts of this case. 15. As per Section 8 of the CISF Act, there is a provision that a member of the force can be compulsorily retired. This compulsory retirement is also a major punishment, which can be inflicted when a member of the force is negligent in discharging his duty or is unfit for the same. 15. As per Section 8 of the CISF Act, there is a provision that a member of the force can be compulsorily retired. This compulsory retirement is also a major punishment, which can be inflicted when a member of the force is negligent in discharging his duty or is unfit for the same. This Court feels that the authority on the facts of this case should consider as to whether quantum of punishment can be modified from "removal from service without any benefit" to some other punishment as indicated above in terms of Section 8 of the CISF Act, considering the observation of this Court in paragraph 14 above. 16. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the revisional authority to consider the case in terms of findings of this Court in paragraphs 14 and 15 above. 17. Thus, this writ application is partly allowed.