JUDGMENT : P. PATNAIK, J. In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of the order of removal vide Annexure-6 and the order of the appellate authority under Annexure-8 and the order passed by the revisioning authority vide Annexure-10 and further prayer has been made for reinstatement into service with her all consequential benefits including the arrears, gratuities and other financial dues with interest. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner entered into service as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (herein after referred to as CISF ) in the year 1994 and underwent training at Hyderabad. Thereafter the petitioner was posted at Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai. The petitioner during his service career has served at different places of CISF units as and when directed by the superior authorities. While the petitioner continuing at F.C.I., Dighaghat on 24.08.2010 he met with an accident and sustained injuries while on official duties and he was on medical leave with effect from 24.08.2010 to 06.09.2010. On 04.09.2010 the petitioner wanted to keep his bike in the unit which was refused by HC/GD Sri R.R.Singh. Though the petitioner and Sri Singh were good friends, but on being teased by said R.R.Singh some altercation ensued and the petitioner was pushed by the Head Constable as a result of which he fell down sustaining leg injury. Due to such incident the petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.09.2010 and was charge sheeted in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was charge sheeted vide Memo No.V-15014/Disc-36/FCI(D OSCM/10-3755 dated 07.10.2010 on the allegation that the petitioner during his medical rest period in F.C.I. Dighaghat on 04.09.2010 at about 20.30 P.M. came to the main gate and misbehaved and manhandled the on duty Constable Sri Ram Roop Singh breaking the wrist watch and detached the loop from Lanyard, thereby committed indiscipline and misconduct. In pursuance of the said charge sheet, the petitioner submitted written statement of defence on 18.10.2010 explaining the detailed facts with a prayer to drop the said charges. The authorities after going through the written statement of defence of the petitioner decided to hold enquiry and accordingly the Inquiry Officer was appointed and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner is proved. The authorities after going through the written statement of defence of the petitioner decided to hold enquiry and accordingly the Inquiry Officer was appointed and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner is proved. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner to submit his reply on the enquiry report and the petitioner submitted his reply on the enquiry report. The Disciplinary authority i.e. Group Commandant vide order dated 07.03.2011 removed the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the order of removal the petitioner preferred appeal which has been dismissed by opposite party no.2 and against the said order of the appellate authority the petitioner preferred revision which also met the same fate. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner left with no other alternative and efficacious remedy has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Controverting the averments made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties wherein it has been submitted that the CISF is a Central Armed Police Force which is deployed in sensitive sectors such as Air Ports, Ports, Unit of department of atomic energy, department of Space, Metro, Power & Steel and the Force requires to maintain discipline of the highest order. In the counter affidavit it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner was awarded punishment of “removal from service” after conducting a departmental enquiry and for proven delinquencies. During the enquiry, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case. He was also given opportunity to take assistance to defend his side and to cross-examine the P.Ws. All possible opportunities were provided to the petitioner during departmental enquiry to meet the requirement of the principle of natural justice. The Disciplinary authority awarded the punishment after careful study of enquiry report, evidences on record, statement of P.Ws, the brief note of Presenting Officer, defence statement of the petitioner. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is well commensurate with the gravity of offence and is also proportionate. Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is not violated and laid down procedure has been followed during departmental enquiry. The appellate as well as revisioning authority issued speaking and reasoned order. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is well commensurate with the gravity of offence and is also proportionate. Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India is not violated and laid down procedure has been followed during departmental enquiry. The appellate as well as revisioning authority issued speaking and reasoned order. While disposing the appeal petition, the appellate authority has gone through each and every points raised by the petitioner in his appeal memo, heard him in person, gone through the enquiry report, statements of P.Ws and evidences and order passed by the disciplinary authority and found no reason to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal being devoid of merit. The revisioning authority has also gone through the revision petition, order passed by disciplinary authority and report/records/evidences available in the case file and applied his mind to this case. He found that the disciplinary and appellate authorities have passed speaking orders after careful examination of all records. He found no room to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority which was further confirmed by the appellate authority. It is further submitted that on 24.08.2010 the petitioner, Ex-Constable of CISF Unit, Dighaghat while going to the FCI Dighaghat after collecting official dak from Eastern Sector/Eastern Zone and Group H.Qrs, Patna through his personal motor bike met with an accident and got injury. After treatment the Medical Officer advised him rest with effect from 24.08.2010. During the medical rest period on 04.09.2010 at about 20.50 hours the petitioner came to the main gate of CISF Unit FCI, Dighaghat and indulged in quarrelling with on duty Head Constable Ram Roop Singh in the matter of huge expenditure towards repairing charges of his motor bike. He used unparliamentary words against Sri Singh and scuffled with him. Sri Singh was on duty at Main Gate of FCI, Dighaghat. During medical rest period the petitioner came to the duty place of Sri Singh and started quarrelling. Nothing adverse has been reported against Sri Singh either in the preliminary enquiry or in the departmental enquiry. Since the CISF is a Central Armed Police Force of the Union, such type of conduct is not expected from a discipline member of the Force. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending initiation of departmental proceeding. Nothing adverse has been reported against Sri Singh either in the preliminary enquiry or in the departmental enquiry. Since the CISF is a Central Armed Police Force of the Union, such type of conduct is not expected from a discipline member of the Force. Therefore, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending initiation of departmental proceeding. It has been further submitted that in an Armed Force of the Union like CISF, such type of misconduct cannot be tolerated. The petitioner is a habitual offender. During his service tenure in CISF he was awarded three minor and two major punishments including this one for which he filed this writ petition. In a similar offence he was awarded punishment of “Removal from service” with effect from 31.07.2006 by the Commandant, CISF Unit UCIL Jaduguda. But considering his appeal petition, young age and future prospects etc. the appellate authority took a lenient view and gave him an opportunity to repent his misdeeds and mend himself and directed for reinstatement in service awarding him a lesser punishment of reduction of pay by four stages for a period of three years with cumulative effect. Though the petitioner joined duty on 08.12.2006 he failed to mend himself and committed another similar serious indiscipline act. This shows that the petitioner is a habitual offender and does not deserve mercy as evident from Annexure-A & B to the counter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the order of removal vide Annexure-6 is based on without appreciation of facts as well as the circumstances of the case which is actuated with mala fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of appeal as well as the revision vide Annexures-9 and 10 being mechanical suffers from non-application of mind. Learned counsel further submits that on perusal of the alleged charges it was found that the misconduct has been proved in a perfunctory enquiry by which the petitioner has become a scapegoat whereas the Head Constable Mr.R.R.Singh has given a clean chit. The petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination in the parity of treatment of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry is an empty formality and is based on no evidence and there has been breach of principle of natural justice without taking cognizance of the material evidence on record. The petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination in the parity of treatment of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry is an empty formality and is based on no evidence and there has been breach of principle of natural justice without taking cognizance of the material evidence on record. As against the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Central Government Counsel has strenuously submitted that from the initiation of departmental proceeding till its conclusion there has been no infraction of principle of natural justice nor there has been any prejudice in the conduct of Disciplinary proceeding. 5. Learned Central Government Counsel further submits that taking into consideration the previous delinquencies of the petitioner and the complicity of the petitioner as found out from the enquiry report justifies awarding of punishment of removal from service which has been confirmed by the appellate as well as revisioning authority. Therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be loath to interfere in the departmental proceeding as the punishment inflicted is just and appropriate to the proven charges. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records the crisps and seminal point that falls for determination as to whether the contention of the petitioner for quashing the order of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority being confirmed by the appellate authority and revisioning authority vide Annexures-6, 8 an 10 can come within the scope and ambit of doctrine of proportionality. The second point which falls for determination as to whether defence taken by the present petitioner has been properly considered vis-à-vis the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4. 7. In the instant case, the gravamen of the charge is that the petitioner during his medical rest period in FCI, Digha Ghat on 04.09.2010 at about 20.30 P.M. came to the main gate and misbehaved and man handled the on-duty constable-Sri Ram Rup Singh thereby breaking the wrist watch and detached the loop from lanyard and thereby committing indiscipline and misconduct. The alleged charges have been proved by the Inquiry Officer and from the initiation of Departmental Proceeding till this culmination, there has been no procedural irregularity. The short question which falls for determination is as to whether the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is proportionate to the alleged charge. The alleged charges have been proved by the Inquiry Officer and from the initiation of Departmental Proceeding till this culmination, there has been no procedural irregularity. The short question which falls for determination is as to whether the punishment inflicted on the petitioner is proportionate to the alleged charge. In order to fortify his claim, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to (1995) 6 SCC 157 : Ram Kishan v. Union of India (UOI) & Others; (2015) 2 SCC 410 : Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Limited; (2007) 7 SCC 257 : Union of India and others v. S.S. Ahluwalia; 2017 (II) OLR 60 : Arjun Charan Sahoo v. State of Odisha and others & 2010(I) OLR 742 : Sudarsan Giri v. Union of India and others. 8. On perusal of the pleadings, counter affidavit and the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority, there is no scope to interfere with regard to procedural aspects of the Disciplinary Proceeding, but so far as infliction of punishment of dismissal from services appears to be a grossly disproportionate considering the proved charges. It is no more res integra that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the punishment only if it finds same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case, the court is to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the punishment. 9. On culling out the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably it cannot pass order regarding quantum of punishment unless there is existence of sufficient reasons so as to shock the conscience of the Court. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the Hon’ble apex Court in Union of India & others Vs. S.S.Ahuluwalia (2007) 7 SCC at page 257 has been pleased to hold that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as to disproportionate or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed it can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the Disciplinary Authority concerned. The Hon’ble apex Court in another judgment rendered in Iswar Chandra Jaiswal Vs. S.S.Ahuluwalia (2007) 7 SCC at page 257 has been pleased to hold that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as to disproportionate or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed it can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the Disciplinary Authority concerned. The Hon’ble apex Court in another judgment rendered in Iswar Chandra Jaiswal Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 2 SCC 748 in paragraph-5 has been pleased to held as follows: “It is now well settled that it is open to the Court, in all circumstances, to consider whether the punishment imposed on the delinquent workman or officer, as the case may be, is commensurate with the Articles of Charge leveled against him. There is a deluge of decisions on this question and we do not propose to travel beyond Union of India v. S.S.Ahulwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 in which this Court had held that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as to the severity or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed, it can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the Disciplinary Authority concerned. In that case, the punishment that had been imposed was the deduction of 10% from the pension for a period of one year. The High Court had set aside that order. In those premises, this Court did not think it expedient to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority and instead approved the decision of the High Court.” In Union of India vs. P.Gunasekaran, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph-20 has held as follows: “Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/277 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the Court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is “moral uprightness; honesty”. It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, clearness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is “moral uprightness; honesty”. It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, clearness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values.” In the case in hand, the major punishment i.e. removal from service has been interpreted, but the petitioner due to alleged charges of being involved with altercation with Head Constable thereby committing misconduct and the petitioner has been found guilty in the enquiry whereas; the other Head Constable has been let off. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service appears to be harsh and disproportionate to the proved charges. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects and applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), this Court is of the considered view that in order to subserve the interest of justice the impugned order of removal from service by the Disciplinary authority being confirmed by the order of appellate authority and the revisional authority are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass orders on the quantum of punishment commensurate with the proved charges within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.