JUDGMENT : Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the order dated 20.10.2002 passed by Respondent No.5 whereby and whereunder the respondents inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement; AND Further issuance of writ for quashing of order dated 2.4.2003 passed the Appellate authority, DIG, CISF Unit Bhako Koli whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed; AND Further issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order of Revisional authority dated 3rd March, 2010 passed by IG, CISF, Eastern Division whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. AND Further writ, order, direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in the services with full back wages, or any other appropriate writ(s) be issued, order(s) be passed and direction(s) be made as Your Lordships may appear fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working as constable and posted at Area No. III CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 20.12.2001 and he denied the charges and was subjected to departmental proceedings. He submits that so far as the charge no. 1 is concerned, the same was not proved and charge no. 2 stood proved. He further submits that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to charge no. 1 and accordingly, a notice was issued and ultimately, the impugned order of punishment (Annexure-1) was passed. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement which is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges against the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner also filed an appeal against the same. The appeal was also dismissed without considering the aforesaid aspect of disproportionate punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. He also submits that substantial period of service was available and the respondents should have taken a compassionate view considering the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case. He also submits that substantial period of service was available and the respondents should have taken a compassionate view considering the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was ultimately found guilty of both the charges levelled against him and the past conduct of the petitioner was in connection with charge no. 2 wherein the petitioner was punished four times earlier. The learned counsel submits that considering the nature of proved misconduct, the punishment awarded to the petitioner i.e. compulsory retirement itself indicates that a lenient view has been taken by the respondents. The respondents have not taken the harsh step of dismissing the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to all the retiral benefits arising out of compulsory retirement. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the petitioner had duly participated in the enquiry proceedings. There has been no violation of principles of natural justice in the matter of departmental proceedings and all the required procedures, as detailed in the counter-affidavit and undisputed by the petitioner, has been followed. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned action and punishment and therefore, the same does not call for any interference. He has also submitted that the appellate authority has also duly considered the grievance of the petitioner and there are concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities. The learned counsel submits that the scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is limited and therefore, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that even the revisional authority has taken the same view and rejected the revision. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that altogether two charges were levelled against the petitioner which included the charge that the petitioner was found in possession of copper wire weighing 6.5 KGs wrapped in his raincoat and one Khaki bag and further charge was that the petitioner was awarded four punishments earlier on various types of misconduct. 8. The petitioner initially denied the charges levelled against him and consequently, enquiry officer was appointed. 8. The petitioner initially denied the charges levelled against him and consequently, enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner requested for change of the enquiry officer and such request of the petitioner was also adhered to by changing the enquiry officer. The petitioner was duly represented by a presenting officer of his choice. The petitioner duly participated in the disciplinary proceedings. The enquiry report was submitted and the petitioner was found guilty only of charge no. 2. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the enquiry officer’s report with regard to charge no. 1 and after giving a note of disagreement, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit his representation against the said disagreement. The petitioner submitted the representation and ultimately, the disciplinary authority passed the final order of punishment dated 20.12.2002 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same which was rejected on merits vide order dated 02.04.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No. 3565 of 2003 and the said writ petition was disposed of enabling the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of revision in terms of Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2001, which the petitioner duly availed. The revisional authority also considered the materials on record and dismissed the revision application vide order dated 03.03.2010. All the three orders are under challenge in the present proceedings. 9. This Court finds that no case for violation of principles of natural justice has been made out by the petitioner. All the three authorities have concurred with the findings against the petitioner. This court also finds that no point regarding perversity in the enquiry report or in the proceedings could be pointed out by the petitioner during the course of hearing. Apparently, the petitioner has vehemently argued regarding the nature of punishment imposed and it is the case of the petitioner that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the authorities have also taken into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner which was charge no. 2 and both the charges stood proved against the petitioner. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the authorities have also taken into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner which was charge no. 2 and both the charges stood proved against the petitioner. This Court also finds that in spite of the past conduct of the petitioner, the authorities have only imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to avail the service benefits arising out of compulsory retirement. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is appropriate and the same cannot be said to be disproportionate much less shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner. The scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is well-settled and the scope is very limited. 12. Accordingly, this Court neither finds any illegality nor perversity in the impugned orders and proceedings nor does this Court find the punishment disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner. No ground for interference has been made out by the petitioner calling for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. 13. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.