ORDER : 1. The punishment of compulsory retirement is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner joined as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in the year 1983. While the petitioner was serving at the CISF Unit Visakhapatnam, he was placed under suspension in order dated 10.12.2014 and thereafter, a charge memo dated 17.01.2015 was issued to the writ petitioner under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules and the following charges are framed: “Article of Charge I: That CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) of HQrs. Sector of CISF Unit VPT Vizag, when posted at CISF Unit VSP Vizag was detailed for Gate Control Duty at Old Vehicle Out Gate of BC Gate area of VSP, Vizag from 16:30 hrs to 18:00 hrs on 02.12.2014. During the said duty he was found taking a Hundred Rupees Note bearing No. 2VK 888409 from Md. Munna Babu Basha, driver of Vehicle No. KA-35N-4204 (Maruti Omni Van) as illegal gratification. Thus such act amounts to gross misconduct, dishonesty, indiscipline and an act of unbecoming conduct on his part being a member of disciplined Force. Hence the Charge. Article of Charge II: That CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) of HQrs. Sector of CISF Unit VPT Vizag, when posted at CISF Unit VSP Vizag was detailed for Gate Control Duty at Old Vehicle Out Gate of BC Gate area of VSP, Vizag from 16:30 hrs to 18:00 hrs on 02.12.2014. During his duty hour, when he was caught red-handed taking a Hundred Rupee Note bearing No. 2 VK 888409 from the Driver of Vehicle No. KA-35N-4204 (Maruti Omni Van) by SI/Exe Arun Kumar of CISF Unit VSP Vizag, he dropped the note in the vehicle beside the Driver's seat. On this issue he started argument with SI/ Exe Arun Kumar and Shift I/C, SI/Exe K.P. Singh. He also disobeyed the orders of both sub-officers to keep calm and quite. Thus, the act committed by HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline being a member of Disciplined Force. Hence this Charge. Article of Charge III: That CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) of Hqrs. He also disobeyed the orders of both sub-officers to keep calm and quite. Thus, the act committed by HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) amounts to gross misconduct and indiscipline being a member of Disciplined Force. Hence this Charge. Article of Charge III: That CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) of Hqrs. Sector of CISF Unit VPT Vizag, has been awarded with 10 minor punishments for committing various misconducts in his past services in CISF as per his service records but he did not rectify and improve himself so far. Hence the disciplinary authority intends to consider the past bad records of service of CISF No. 832311107 HC/GD R. Thirunavakarasu (U/S) while deciding the case on merit.” 3. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 24.01.2015, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanations, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by following the procedures as contemplated. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice, providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his further objections. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed final orders, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity benefits. 4. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the 3rd respondent and the Appeal was rejected in order dated 09.10.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Revision before the 2nd respondent, which was also rejected in order dated 29.06.2016. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in spite of ‘No Evidence’ to establish the charges against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer erroneously held that the charges are proved beyond any doubt. Thus, the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner is untenable. The allegation against the writ petitioner was that he had taken a 100 rupee note as illegal gratification. However, the respondents could not able to establish for what purpose the petitioner had taken an illegal gratification. 6. It is contended that an ill motive or intention or otherwise had not been established during the course of enquiry and thus, the charge itself is untenable and liable to be set aside. However, the respondents could not able to establish for what purpose the petitioner had taken an illegal gratification. 6. It is contended that an ill motive or intention or otherwise had not been established during the course of enquiry and thus, the charge itself is untenable and liable to be set aside. There is no trap or pre-planned arrangements, so as to trap the petitioner, while taking any such illegal gratification. Though the charge memo states that the petitioner was caught red-handed, there is no proof to establish that the petitioner had received money for committing any illegality, irregularity or favouring some person and therefore, the intention and the purpose, for which, the illegal gratification alleged to have been received was not established and thus, the charges are untenable. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the PW2 SI/EXE Arun Kumar, who caught the petitioner red-handed was actually deployed in ‘B’ shift duty at LSGP out gate as Gate I/C, as per the statement given by the PW-1 and PW-2, but not at the BC old gate, where the incident occurred. Thus, the deposition of PW-2 cannot be relied upon. The GD (General Diary) register revealed that the PW-2 had already handed over the charge to PW-1 (SI/EXE K.P. Singh) at 17:25 hours. Therefore, there is no reason, whatsoever for PW-2 to supervise the petitioner in an unauthorised manner. In view of the ambiguities in the evidence, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is to be held as improper. The Enquiry Officer did not assign any reason, while the evidence produced by the petitioner was not considered. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner narrating the deposition of the above evidences, contended that it is the case of “No Evidence.” Thus, the punishment of compulsory retirement is untenable. 9. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court of Madras as the cause of action aroused, while the petitioner was serving as Constable in Vishakapatnam in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. 10. With reference to the charges, the respondents have stated that the procedures as contemplated were scrupulously followed by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. 10. With reference to the charges, the respondents have stated that the procedures as contemplated were scrupulously followed by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his case. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the procedures followed for the purpose of conducting the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his final report and agreeing with the findings, the Disciplinary Authority considered the grave charges proved against the writ petitioner and considering the previous conduct of the writ petitioner in the Force and accordingly, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and gratuity benefits and there is no infirmity and consequently, the writ petition is to be rejected. 11. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the full fledged departmental enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer as per the procedures laid down under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. Based on the documents and evidences, the enquiry officer held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. A 100 Rupee note thrown by the petitioner on the spot was recovered by the SI/EXE Arun Kumar, who in turn, deposed the same before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, the charges are proved beyond doubt and the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to defend his case. The previous conduct of the writ petitioner and the punishments earned by him were also considered by the Disciplinary Authority, while imposing the penalty, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. 12. The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes, through which, a decision is taken by the competent authority in consonance with the Statutes and Rules in force, but not the decision itself. Therefore, this Court has to consider, whether the procedures as contemplated under the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 were followed or not, while conducting the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Then, the Court has to examine, whether there is some material evidences to establish the charges, which would be sufficient for the purpose of punishing the employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Then, the Court has to examine, whether there is some material evidences to establish the charges, which would be sufficient for the purpose of punishing the employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. As far as the departmental disciplinary proceedings are concerned, even ‘preponderance of probability’ are enough to punish an employee and in this context, this Court has to consider the procedures, which all are to be followed and the exercise of power of judicial review, which is to be restricted to determine whether: 1. The Rules of natural justice have been complied with? 2. The findings of misconduct is based on some evidence? 3. The Statutory Rules governing conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed? 4. Whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority suffer from perversity? 5. The penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct? 13. As far as the rules of natural justice are concerned, it is not in dispute that the charge memo was served to the petitioner and he submitted his written Statement of defence and participated in the process of enquiry. Thus, the opportunities contemplated were afforded to the writ petitioner to defend his case and the principles of natural justice had been complied with in this case. The findings of the Enquiry report regarding the misconduct is undoubtedly based on some evidences. The petitioner was caught redhandedly, while receiving a 100 rupee note, the Sub-Inspector, who caught the petitioner red-handed, clearly, elaborated the incident and deposed before the Enquiry Officer. All other documents and evidences corroborated incident and accordingly, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. 14. The Statutory Rules governing the conduct of disciplinary enquiry have been observed by the competent authorities and therefore, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority do not suffer from any perversity. 15. Regarding the penalty of compulsory retirement, this Court is unable to form an opinion that the punishment is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the 3rd Article of charges, which reveals that the petitioner had been awarded with 10 minor punishments for committing various misconduct in his past services in the CISF as per the Service Records. In this regard, it is relevant to consider the 3rd Article of charges, which reveals that the petitioner had been awarded with 10 minor punishments for committing various misconduct in his past services in the CISF as per the Service Records. The details of punishments in his past services in the CISF are recorded as under: “(1) Awarded punishment of “05 days pay fine” vide CISF Unit MPT Goa Final Order No. (4640) dated 24.09.1985 for Sleeping on duty (P-44 of personal file). (2) Awarded punishment of “Postponement of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect” vide CISF Unit MPT Goa Final Order No. (512) dated 28.02.1986 for Sleeping on duty (P-61 of personal file). (3) Awarded punishment of “02 days pay fine” vide CISF Unit MRL Manali Final Order No. (3435) dated 30.09.1993 for late reporting on duty and wearing shabby uniform without laneyard, title shoulder, name plate and short lathi, wearing colour socks and PT shoes thereafter remained absent for emergency duty (P-130 of personal file). (4) Awarded punishment of “02 days pay fine” vide CISF Unit MRL Manali Final Order No. (277) dated 17.01.1994 for stopping Mr. A. Subbaiah, Supervisor of A.S. Devan contract and his labourers from going out late in the night after completion of their work vide Final Order No. (277) dated 17.01.1994 (P-139 of personal file). (5) Awarded punishment of “Withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect” vide CISF Unit MRL Manali Final Order No. (4578) dated 26.11.1994 for found with boot not polished properly and hair not cut properly during muster parade and failed to attend Orderly Room of the AC and shouted and misbehaved (P-160 of personal file). (6) Awarded punishment of “CENSURE” vide CISF Unit MRL Manali Final Order No. (5808) dated 01.12.1995 for his act of gross indiscipline in that he was not present in the duty post when checked by Insp/Exe K. Subbaiah (P-180 of personal file). (7) Awarded of punishment of “02 days pay fine” vide Appellate Order No. (724) dated 15.01.2002 of CISF Unit NLC Neyveli for found sleeping with Arms and Ammunitions on (P-288 of personal file). (8) Awarded punishment of “CENSURE” vide CISF Unit NLC Neyveli Final Order No. (6707) dated 30.06.2004 for found sleeping on duty with Arms (P-307 of personal file). (7) Awarded of punishment of “02 days pay fine” vide Appellate Order No. (724) dated 15.01.2002 of CISF Unit NLC Neyveli for found sleeping with Arms and Ammunitions on (P-288 of personal file). (8) Awarded punishment of “CENSURE” vide CISF Unit NLC Neyveli Final Order No. (6707) dated 30.06.2004 for found sleeping on duty with Arms (P-307 of personal file). (9) Awarded punishment of “CENSURE” vide CISF Unit BVFCL Namrup Final Order No. (131) dated 19.01.2009 for gross negligence and carelessness in that he lost his identity card (P-131 of personal file). (10) Awarded punishment of “CENSURE” vide CISF Unit VSP Vizag Final Order No. (1291) dated 20.09.2014 for his act of negligence in his duty which resulted in occurrence of theft from his duty area.” 16. The above previous punishments were also taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority, while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, the authorities have considered the proved charges and the previous conduct of the writ petitioner as the petitioner earned 10 previous punishments for various misconducts in the CISF services. Thus, the punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity benefits cannot be construed as disproportionate to the gravity of proved charges against the writ petitioner. 17. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority have passed speaking orders, reiterating the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, there is no infirmity or perversity as such. 18. In the present case, the petitioner earned 10 previous punishments in CISF services. In respect of the disciplinary proceedings, he was redhandedly caught, while receiving a 100 rupee note from a third party. The prosecution could able to establish that the petitioner committed an act of misconduct and accordingly, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of punishment. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.