JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 02.09.2014 in his Order No.V-15014/ L&R/ SS/Rev/PKMK/2014/182, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 30.4.2014 in his order No.V-11014(1)/17/Appeal/Anu/SZ/2014/3111 and confirming the order passed by the 4th respondent in his Final Order No.V-15014/VSP/Anu/Major-15/PMK/2014/528, dated 18.1.2014 and quash the same and to direct the respondents to take the petitioner into the strength of Central Industrial Security Force as Constable with all monetary benefits.) 1. The order of removal issued by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner joined as Constable on 20.03.1996 in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). A charge memorandum under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules was issued by the 4th respondent in proceedings dated 22.10.2013 with the following charges: ARTICLE OF CHARGE CISF No. 963510125, Constable Prabhakumar.M.K of CISF Unit VSP-Visakhapatnam was detailed for night shift duty from 1700 hrs on 05.10.2013 to 0500 hrs on 06.10.2013, but he was found absent from shift briefing at about 1640 hrs on 05.10.2013 and also did not turn up for the said duty. The above act of the enrolled member of the Force tantamount to gross indiscipline and dereliction of duty. Hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II CISF No.963510125, Constable Prabhakumar.M.K of CISF Unit VSP-Visakhapatnam came in drunken condition to 'A' Coy, office at about 1715 hrs on 05.10.2013 and started abusing to Company Havildar Major(CHM) HC/GD R.S. Gurjar, Constable/GD A.K.Thakur and Constable/GD Vikash Kumar Sharma. Further constable/GD Prabhakumar M.K. came to main office at about 1755 hrs on the same day and misbehaved with Asstt. Commandant/HQrs, when he was ordered for medical examination, he ran away from main office and later on when traced at his residence, he refused to undergo medical examination. The above act of the enrolled member of the Force tantamount to gross misconduct, insubordination, indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders of superiors and unbecoming conduct of the member of an Armed Force of the Union of India. Hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III CISF No. 963510125, Constable Prabhakumar. The above act of the enrolled member of the Force tantamount to gross misconduct, insubordination, indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders of superiors and unbecoming conduct of the member of an Armed Force of the Union of India. Hence the charge. ARTICLE OF CHARGE-III CISF No. 963510125, Constable Prabhakumar. M. K of CISF Unit VSP-Visakhapatnam misconduct and indiscipline activities earlier for absent from unit line from 2240 hrs to 2315 hrs on 31.05.2002 and misbehaving with Insp/Exe N. Hussain, Coy Commander and BHM under influence of liquor at 2325 hrs on 19.01.2005 and shouting abusive language against Insp/Exe N. Hussain. Despite these punishments, he has failed to improve himself and he is committing indiscipline activities and misconduct again and again. Thus, he has become a habitual offender in committing such indiscipline activities which is not expected from a member of a discipline Armed Police Force. Hence the charge.” 3. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defense against the articles of charges and denied allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the delinquent officials. The enquiry report was submitted, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and a second show cause notice was issued, seeking further objections from the charged officials. The writ petitioner submitted his objection and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal and revision and both were rejected. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is a violation of principles of natural justice. The punishment of removal from service is not in proportionate with the gravity of the allegations raised against the writ petitioner. Thirdly, the documents as sought for, were not produced, which all are vital for the purpose of defence as far as the writ petitioner is concerned. On all these grounds, the writ petition is liable to be considered and the impugned orders are to be set aside. 5. To substantiate the above grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the findings in the enquiry report. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon the fact that the petitioner was not subjected to blood test to prove the intoxication. 5. To substantiate the above grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court with reference to the findings in the enquiry report. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon the fact that the petitioner was not subjected to blood test to prove the intoxication. He has not even sent for Medical examination and the authorities uniformly took a decision that the petitioner was in intoxicated condition. Thus, the findings in this regard not supported by any medical certificate cannot be relied upon. Thus, the Enquiry Officer also failed to consider these aspects, raised as a defence by the petitioner. It is further contended that the Enquiry Officer relied on the preliminary enquiry report rendered, considering the documents available on record during the course of enquiry. The preliminary enquiry conducted by the officials cannot be a conclusive factor. Such preliminary enquiry may be a source for framing charges against the delinquent official. But, preliminary report alone cannot be the evidence for the purpose of holding that the charges against the delinquent official are proved. Beyond the preliminary enquiry, the enquiry officer is bound to consider all other mitigating factors and the documents produced by the department and the defense taken by the charged official. Such an effort has not been taken by the Enquiry Officer. Contrarily, he formed an opinion merely based on the Enquiry Report, more so, in the absence of Medical certificate to establish the drunken mode. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the documents as required were not furnished nor scrutinized. The vital evidences and the defence statement submitted by the petitioner were not considered in a right perspective and the Enquiry Officer was carried away with the pleadings of the department and therefore, the enquiry report is perverse. 7. It is contended that based on the improper enquiry report, major penalty of removal from service was imposed and thus, the punishment is not in proportionate with the gravity of the allegations raised against the writ petitioner. 8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Raj Singh, reported in (2019) SCC OnLine Del 6510 and relied on the following observations: “20. However, the matter does not end here. 8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Raj Singh, reported in (2019) SCC OnLine Del 6510 and relied on the following observations: “20. However, the matter does not end here. Even though I see no infirmity in the conduct of the Inquiry Officer in not making any further effort to ensure the presence of the respondent's defence witness, what I find disturbing is that the Inquiry Officer who performs a quasi-judicial function and must arrive at a reasoned finding qua the delinquent employee's guilt, has simply disregarded the medical documents produced by the respondent in support of his contention that he was hospitalized on the date of the alleged incident. In fact, once there was nothing to show that the medical documents produced by the respondent/workman were forged or fabricated, the Inquiry Officer ought to have at least considered the same before discounting them, by giving reasons howsoever brief they may be, particularly when the author of the medical documents himself had sent a letter confirming the authenticity of the said documents. Merely because the concerned doctor had not participated in the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer could not have in such a casual and mechanical manner, treated the respondent's medical documents as having no weight and that too without ascribing any reasons. Thus, even though I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to ensure the presence of the defence witness at the domestic inquiry, I am still of the view that the findings of the said inquiry are perverse due to the violation of the principles of natural justice on account of the unreasoned non-consideration of the respondent's medical documents. Consequently, the order dated 21st August, 2009 holding the issue of the validity of the domestic inquiry against the petitioner, deserves to be upheld.” (b) In the case of Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Sanya Sahayak and others, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 189 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations: “13. Consequently, the order dated 21st August, 2009 holding the issue of the validity of the domestic inquiry against the petitioner, deserves to be upheld.” (b) In the case of Brijesh Chandra Dwivedi (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Sanya Sahayak and others, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 189 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations: “13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, narrated hereinabove, the award of punishment of dismissal can be said to be too harsh, the punishment of dismissal is directed to be converted into compulsory retirement of the employee. As the employee has since died, and on converting the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement, death-cum-retirement benefits as also the benefit of family pension, if any, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with law and bearing in mind that punishment of dismissal has now been converted into one of compulsory retirement. The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 9. The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the charges are grave in nature. The petitioner was a habitual offender and even on earlier occasions, adverse conduct were noticed on many occasions. The member of the CISF is expected to exhibit high standard of discipline and good conduct so long he is in Force. It has been clearly established during the departmental enquiry that the charged official was detailed for night shift duty from 1700 hrs on 05/10/13 to 0500 Hrs on 06/10/13 at WT 08 duty post as per duty deployment chart dated 05.10.2013. In order to mount the said duty, as per the system, all such personnel should attend the shift briefing just before going to their respective duty post. Accordingly, as usual the shift briefing for Night Shift duty from 1700 hrs. on 05.10.2013 to 0500 hrs. on 06.10.2013 was conducted at about 1640 hrs. on 05.10.2013 by shift I/C Insp/Exe B Mahana but the said constable was found absent in shift briefing. To this effect a General Diary (G.D) entry was made at Sl.No.33 at 1728 hrs on 05.10.2013. on 05.10.2013 to 0500 hrs. on 06.10.2013 was conducted at about 1640 hrs. on 05.10.2013 by shift I/C Insp/Exe B Mahana but the said constable was found absent in shift briefing. To this effect a General Diary (G.D) entry was made at Sl.No.33 at 1728 hrs on 05.10.2013. Subsequently, Constable/GD Prabhakumar M K did not turn up for night shift duty on 05.10.2013 and found absent from said duty for which he was detailed as per the duty deployment chart of 05.10.2013 without any information or permission to/from competent authority. To this effect a G.D entry was also made at SI.No. 35 at 1810 hrs on 05.10.2013. This fact corroborates with the statement of Insp/Exe B Mahan (PW-1), SI/Exe Sunil Kumar (PW-2), HC/GD R S Gurjar (PW-4), Const/GD A K Thakur (PW-5) and substantiated from the exhibits produced by them during course of departmental enquiry. Thereafter he came to 'A' Coy, office at about 1715 hrs. on 05.10.2013 in drunken state and started abusing to Coy CHM HC/GD RS. Gurjar, Coy writers CT/GD A K Thakur and CT/GD Vikash Kumar Sharma. Then at about 1725 hrs. CT/GD Vikash Kumar Sharma (Coy Writer) informed the fact over telephone to SI/Adm Sunil Kumar that CISF No.963510125 CT/GD Prabhakumar MK was totally in drunken state and created lot of nuisance in Coy Office and abusing CHM and Coy. Writers. This fact is corroborated with the statement of SI/Exe Sunil Kumar (PW-2), Const/GD A K Thaukur(PW-5) and Const/GD V K Sharma (CW-2). On receipt of this message over telephone SI/Adm 'A' Coy. rushed to Coy. Office and reached at about 1740 hrs but by that time Ct/GD Prabhakumar M K had left the Coy. Office. Thereafter SI/Adm Sunil Kumar came to Main Office to inform about the activities of Constable Prabuakumar M K to Asst. Comdt/Adm (HQrs) at 1755 hrs where he saw that Ct/GD Prabhakumar MK was already present in the office and was misbehaving with Sh.P. Chaudhury, Asst. Commandant/HQrs. shouting in loud voice. Constable/GD Prabhakumar MK was totally in drunken state and he was uttering to AC/Adm/HQrs that "I am drunken and you can't do any thing, you only cut my two increments but I approach to the Court and lodge case”. To this effect a G.D entry was made at Sl. No. 86 dated 05.10.2013 at 1820 hrs. Asst. Comdt/HQrs. Constable/GD Prabhakumar MK was totally in drunken state and he was uttering to AC/Adm/HQrs that "I am drunken and you can't do any thing, you only cut my two increments but I approach to the Court and lodge case”. To this effect a G.D entry was made at Sl. No. 86 dated 05.10.2013 at 1820 hrs. Asst. Comdt/HQrs. ordered for medical examination of CT/GD Prabhakumar MK seeing his drunken state but the same could not be done as the individual ran away taking advantage of darkness. This fact is corroborated with the statement of PW-2,PW-3, PW-5 and CW-2) The individual was searched by SI/Exe Sunil Kumar, SI/Exe Jaibhagwan and Coy writer CT/GD A K Thakur and HC/GD RS Gurjar (CHM) but he was not found in the surrounding area. When Coy. Writer Ct/GD A K Thakur went to the residence of Const/GD Prabhakumar M K and approached him for medical examination, he refused to come along with him for medical examination. In this connection a GD entry was made at SL No. 190 on 2005 hrs. on 05.10.2013. CISF No. 963510125 CT/GD Prabhakumar MK of CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam is a habitual offender of committing various misconducts for which he had been awarded 02 (two) punishments for his misconduct and indiscipline activities earlier. The details of misconducts and punishments awarded to No. 963510125 CT/GD Prabhakumar MK of CISF Unit VSP Visakhapatnam are as under: 01. Awarded the punishment of CENSURE vide Asstt. Commandant, CISF Unit BSO(SY),SAIL, Durgapur Final Order No.V-15014/Disc/BSO/SY/01/2002/17 dated 06.06.2002 for absent from unit line of BSO(SY) from 2240 hrs. to 2315 hrs. on 31.05.2002 without any prior permission/information from higher authority while check roll-call was carried out by CHM CISF Unit BSO(SY) SAIL,Durgapur. 02. With holding of One Increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect" vide Commandant CISF Unit FACT (UDL) Final Order No.V-15014/FACT-CD/UR-37/2005/617 dated 02.04.2005 for misbehaving with Insp/Exe N Hussain, Coy. Commander and BHM under influence of liquor at 2325 hrs on 19.01.2005 and also shouting abusive language against Insp/Exe N Husain from JNM Hospital when he was brought there for medical check up. 10. The learned Senior Panel counsel relying on the findings of the Disciplinary Authority regarding the previous conduct of the petitioner, made a submission that he was a habitual offender of committing various misconducts and on earlier occasion, the punishments were issued by the authorities competent. 10. The learned Senior Panel counsel relying on the findings of the Disciplinary Authority regarding the previous conduct of the petitioner, made a submission that he was a habitual offender of committing various misconducts and on earlier occasion, the punishments were issued by the authorities competent. Therefore, the authorities competent have taken into consideration the overall conduct of the writ petitioner and further, the habitual offences committed by him on previous occasions, formed an opinion and arrived a conclusion and imposed the penalty of removal from service. Therefore, the said punishment cannot be held as disproportionate. 11. Considering the arguments, this Court is of the considered opinion that The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; (iv) the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 12. Regarding the rules of natural justice, the charge memorandum was issued as per the CISF Rules and an opportunity was afforded to the charged official to defend his case at all stages. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The documents were considered by the enquiry officer and findings were given. The petitioner raised further objections on the findings also and based on the final report of the enquiry officer, the penalty of removal from service was imposed. Thus, there is no violation of natural justice and the petitioner also availed off the opportunities afforded to him. 13. Regarding the finding of misconduct, documents and evidences were considered by the enquiry officer at the first instance, who in turn, elaborately made a finding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The enquiry officer considered the statements of PW-I, PW-II and PW-III and the Exhibits PW-I/Exh P-1, Exh P-2, Exh P-3 & Exh P-4. The statements and the documents corroborates with each other, confirming that the charged official was detailed for Night Shift Duty from 1700 hrs, on 05.10.2013 to 0500 hrs, on 06.10.2013, but he was found absent from shift briefing at about 1640 hrs on 05.10.2013 and also did not turn up for the said duty. The statements and the documents corroborates with each other, confirming that the charged official was detailed for Night Shift Duty from 1700 hrs, on 05.10.2013 to 0500 hrs, on 06.10.2013, but he was found absent from shift briefing at about 1640 hrs on 05.10.2013 and also did not turn up for the said duty. Thus, the enquiry officer considered the entire materials available on record and also the deposition of the witnesses and formed an opinion that Article-1 of the charge framed against the delinquent official is held proved. Regarding the Articles 2 and 3 also, the enquiry officer elaborately considered the documents and evidences on record. The findings with reference to the third charge reveals that the statement of P.W.VI and the exhibits PW-VI/Exh P-1 and Exh P-2 produced by PW-IV and brief of presenting officer in the case, it is clear that charged official has failed to improve himself and he is committing indiscipline activities and misconduct again and again despite penalized by different disciplinary authorities in two occasions at different units during his service. 14. Thus, the enquiry officer has also considered the previous conduct of the writ petitioner and the punishments imposed on earlier occasions. The overall conduct of the petitioner in the CISF force was considered by the competent authority and they arrived a conclusion and imposed the penalty of removal from service. 15. In the case of Union of India and others vs. Bishamber Das Dogra [ (2009) 13 SCC 102 ], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in paragraphs 18, 25, 26, 27 30, 33 and 34 held as under:- “18. This Court in S.K. Sharma case [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] held as under : (S.K. Sharma case [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 717] , SCC p. 389, para 32) “32. … Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counterproductive exercise.” (emphasis added) Similar view had been reiterated in S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India [ (1996) 6 SCC 415 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 39] and State of U.P. v. Harendra Arora [ (2001) 6 SCC 392 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 959 : AIR 2001 SC 2319 ] . 25. In India Marine Service (P) Ltd. v. Workmen [ AIR 1963 SC 528 : (1963) 3 SCR 575 ] this Court while considering a similar issue held as under : (AIR p. 529, para 6) “6. … It is true that the last sentence suggests that the past record of Bose has also been taken into consideration. But it does not follow from this that that was the effective reason for dismissing him. The Managing Director having arrived at the conclusion that Bose's services must be terminated in the interest of discipline, he added one sentence to give additional weight to the decision already arrived at. Upon this view it would follow that the Tribunal was not competent to go behind the finding of the Managing Director and consider for itself the evidence adduced before him. The order of the Tribunal quashing the dismissal of Bose and directing his reinstatement is, therefore, set aside as being contrary to law.” (emphasis added) 26. Similarly in DG, RPF v. Ch. Sai Babu [ (2003) 4 SCC 331 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 464] this Court held as under : (SCC p. 334, para 6) “6. … Normally, the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate, after examining all the relevant factors including the nature of charges proved against, the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected of and discipline required to be maintained, and the department/establishment in which the delinquent person concerned works.”(emphasis added) 27. In Bharat Forge Co. In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate [ (2005) 2 SCC 489 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 298] this Court reiterated the similar view observing as under : (SCC p. 499, para 32) “32. … In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the past conduct of the respondent as also his conduct during the domestic enquiry proceedings, we cannot say that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent was wholly disproportionate to his act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary.” (emphasis added) 30. In view of the above, it is evident that it is desirable that the delinquent employee may be informed by the disciplinary authority that his past conduct would be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require. 33. Admittedly, the respondent employee has not completed the service of six years and had been imposed punishment three times for remaining absent from duty. On the fourth occasion when he remained absent for ten days without leave, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The show-cause notice could not be served upon him for the reason that he again deserted the line and returned back after fifty days. Therefore the disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded expeditiously. The respondent submitted the reply to the show-cause notice and the material on record reveal that during the pendency of the enquiry he further deserted the line for ten days. There is nothing on record to show any explanation for such repeated misconduct or absenteeism. The court/tribunal must keep in mind that such indiscipline is intolerable so far as the disciplined force is concerned. 34. The respondent was a guard in CISF. No attempt had ever been made at any stage by the respondent employee to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Nor had he ever submitted that such a course has resulted in failure of justice. 34. The respondent was a guard in CISF. No attempt had ever been made at any stage by the respondent employee to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Nor had he ever submitted that such a course has resulted in failure of justice. More so, the respondent employee had never denied at any stage that he had not been punished three times before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and deserted the line twice even after issuance of the show-cause notice in the instant case. No explanation could be furnished by the respondent employee as under what circumstances he has not even considered it proper to submit the application for leave. Rather, the respondent thought that he had a right to desert the line at his sweet will. It was a case of gross violation of discipline. Appeal filed by the respondent employee was decided by the statutory appellate authority giving cogent reasons.” 16. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bishamber Das Dogra (cited supra), the respondent-employee therein remained absent from duty without any justification or leave for more than five years within a short span of less than six years in service. During the relevant point of time, the respondent-employee was imposed with several minor punishments and later dismissed from service. The question aroused for consideration in that case was whether the order of punishment would be vitiated if the Disciplinary Authority takes into consideration the past conduct of the delinquent employee for the purpose of punishment. The respondent-employee in the abovesaid case, submitted the reply to the show cause notice and the materials on record would reveal that during the pendency of the enquiry, the respondent-employee further deserted the LINE for 10 days. There is nothing on record to show any explanation for such repeated misconduct or absenteeism. The Court/ Tribunal must keep in mind that such indiscipline is intolerable so far as the disciplined force is concerned. The respondent-employee was a Guard in the CISF. No attempt had ever been made at any stage by the respondent-employee to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Nor he ever submitted that such a course has resulted in failure of justice. 17. The respondent-employee was a Guard in the CISF. No attempt had ever been made at any stage by the respondent-employee to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Nor he ever submitted that such a course has resulted in failure of justice. 17. In the case of Bishamber Das Dogra (cited supra), it is evident that it is desirable that delinquent employee may be informed by the Disciplinary Authority that his past conduct would be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in absence of Statutory Rules, the Authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weightage to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require. 18. The findings of the Enquiry officer and the facts established in the case were again elaborately considered by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, by the Revisional Authority. When the facts and circumstances are elaborately considered by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority, the High Court cannot in exercise of the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-adjudicate the facts, which is not desirable. 19. This Court is of the considered opinion that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court relied on by the petitioner have no application with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings, the paramount consideration would be the documents and evidences available on record. The principles of natural justice, if complied or not, are also to be verified. Proportionality of the punishment depends on the nature of allegations, the previous conduct of the charged official, earlier punishments are to be considered and the overall opinion formed by the competent authority is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of forming an opinion. Thus, the judgment cited may not have any direct application with reference to the case on had. However, the principles are followed or not is to be considered by this Court. 20. Re-adjudication of facts may be required, only if there is a perversity. Thus, the judgment cited may not have any direct application with reference to the case on had. However, the principles are followed or not is to be considered by this Court. 20. Re-adjudication of facts may be required, only if there is a perversity. The cogent consideration of facts by the Original authority and the Appellate Authority is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving a conclusion. In the present case, all the authorities have uniformly formed an opinion that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved and taking note of his previous conduct in the CISF force, penalty of removal from service was imposed. Regarding the proportionality of punishment, three charges were framed against the writ petitioner and all the charges are held as proved. The charges are grave in nature. No doubt, if the absence is on account of certain genuine circumstances, which is established by the delinquent official, then a lenient view is permissible. In respect of habitual offenders, lenient view will lead to indiscipline in the Force. The CISF being uniformed service, discipline is of paramount importance and habitual offenders, if retained would create demorale amongst the force and thus, the decision in this regard by the competent authority are to be viewed with reference to the disciplinary rules. 21. Thus, absenting from duty in a while on genuine circumstance, if established by the charged official, then the officials may take a lenient view at the first instance. However, if such misconducts are continuously committed by the personnel working in force, then the leniency or misplaced sympathy is impermissible and Courts, at no circumstances, compromise the discipline in forces, which will cause prejudice to the interest of high discipline to be maintained in such forces in our great Nation. In the present case, the petitioner was a habitual offender of all the materials available on record and the defence and grounds raised by the petitioner were elaborately considered by the authorities and therefore, this Court do not find any acceptable reason for the purpose of interfering with the punishable imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. 22. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.