JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed to quash the final order dated 20.6.2019 passed by Senior Commandant, CISF, CTPS, Chandrapura-respondent no.5. 3. The petitioner is a Head Constable of CISF, Unit CTPS Chandrapura. A complaint was lodged by Anita Kumari daughter of Constable P.C Oraon, CISF Chandrapura alleging therein that on 13.3.2019 at about 22 hours the petitioner entered the house by knocking the door. Father of the complainant was there along with the complainant. The petitioner sat with them when the complainant asked the petitioner the purpose of his visit. The petitioner thereafter threatened the complainant and her father also misbehaved with them and went away. The petitioner thereafter was served with a memo and was suspended contemplating initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner alleging therein the misconduct which he has committed. A Departmental Enquiry was initiated after framing of charges. Presenting Officer was also appointed. Considering the materials gathered during the Enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Report was submitted finding the petitioner to be guilty of the charge. After following the due procedure of law, the petitioner was punished. The punishment was of reduction of the pay by two stages from Rs.40,400/- to Rs.38,100/- in level-5 of pay matrix for a period of one year with immediate effect. Further there was a direction that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the aforesaid period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also stood dismissed, so was the revision. 4. Challenging the aforesaid three orders passed by the authorities, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the punishment is absolutely harsh and does not commensurate with the gravity of the charges put against him. He submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is false and due to personal grudge a false complaint has been lodged by the complainant, in connivance with others, and the petitioner has been punished. He submits that there are several contradiction in the statement of the complainant and if the complaint is seen it would be clear that during recording of the statement, the complainant had improved her case. As per him the contradictions were not properly dealt with by the Enquiry Officer. 5. He submits that there are several contradiction in the statement of the complainant and if the complaint is seen it would be clear that during recording of the statement, the complainant had improved her case. As per him the contradictions were not properly dealt with by the Enquiry Officer. 5. The respondents had filed their counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit they have stated that petitioner has committed misconduct, consciously and wilfully violated the direction of the superior including the Office order No.9186 dated 30.10.2018. There was no occasion for the petitioner to visit the residential quarters when there was a specific order prohibiting the CISF, Personnel to enter the family complex. Entering in family complex, ignoring the order of the superior, is a misconduct for which penalty was awarded. 6. After hearing the parties, I find that petitioner is questioning the punishment which was imposed in the Departmental Proceeding. The scope of interfering in a Departmental Proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriay Gramin Bank Vrs. Rajednra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 in para 19.1, 19.2 & 19.3 has held as below:- “19.1 When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2 The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3 Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.” 7. In this case admittedly, there is no miscarriage of justice so far as the procedure is concerned. The question of appreciation of evidence led by the witnesses before the Enquiry Officer cannot be a subject matter of a writ application. This Court is not an Appellate Court, thus has got no power to weigh the evidence. Further the case before me arises out of a Departmental Proceeding where the proof of guilt is on the preponderance of probability. This Court is not an Appellate Court, thus has got no power to weigh the evidence. Further the case before me arises out of a Departmental Proceeding where the proof of guilt is on the preponderance of probability. The punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner is of reduction of pay by two stages and stoppage of increment and withholding his increment with effect of postponing of his future increment of pay. If the punishment is disproportionate, this Court can interfere. Keeping in view the well settled principle that the quantum of punishment is the domain of the employer, this writ application has to be adjudicated. 8. While going through the records, I find that there is a specific office Order dated 30.10.2018 prohibiting bachelor CISF, Personnel visiting family complexes during evening/night hours one reason or another. It has also been specified in the order that deviation of the same will be viewed seriously and Disciplinary action will be initiated. It is necessary to quote office order herein below:- “It has come to the notice of the undersigned that some bachelor CISF personnel are visiting to CISF family complex during evening/night hours showing one reason or another. To maintain a healthy environment in the Unit and to prevent any indiscipline/untoward incident, it is hereby directed that no bachelor CISF personnel will visit family quarters during evening/night hours at CISF family complex without the permission of RI/AC/Plant/Township. Any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously and appropriate disciplinary action will be initiated against the defaulters. Directed for strict compliance.” 9. Admittedly, petitioner entered the family complex violating the said office order. Thus the commission of the act is itself a misconduct. Further the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct based on evidence. There is no flaw in the inquiry process. Further the punishment which has been imposed cannot be said to be excessive or harsh which warrants interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.