JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Anurag Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.04.2008 passed by respondent no. 3 vide letter no. V-15014/CISF/BCCL/anu/RKS/2008/2009 and the other consequential orders dated 30.07.2008 passed by respondent no. 2 vide letter no. V 11015/ES/LC/Appeal-05/2008 8173 in departmental appeal and the order dated 22.12.2008 passed in revision by respondent no. 1 vide letter no. V-11014/27/L&R/08-2003 by which the petitioner has been compulsory retired with full pension and gratuity. (ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all his dignity and wages for intervening period. Arguments of the Petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of punishment, appellate order and revisional order arising out of departmental proceeding has submitted that the petitioner is a victim of conspiracy amongst his colleagues namely Abhay Kumar Singh who was the immediate junior to the petitioner who connived with other complainants who were civilians. The connivance of Abhay Kumar Singh with other complainants is apparent from the fact that another complainant namely Santosh Kumar Singh had handed over the complaint to Abhay Kumar Singh although the same was addressed to the Deputy Commandant and the concerned Deputy Commandant was Surendra Pal Singh. Learned counsel further submits that the conspiracy is apparent from the fact that all the complaints were lodged in the vicinity of the period of one month in the month of May, 2007. The learned counsel further submits that although there is allegation of transaction of money through loan, though of meager amount, but no documentary evidence as such has been produced during the course of departmental enquiry, although all the persons with whom the transaction of loan was made had deposed during the departmental enquiry and accordingly, the petitioner has been held guilty only on the basis of oral evidence. The learned counsel further submits that it has also been alleged against the petitioner in the charge sheet itself that the petitioner did not pay certain amount in connection with purchase of ration, telephone call charges and tea charges but no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of such complainants. The learned counsel further submits that it has also been alleged against the petitioner in the charge sheet itself that the petitioner did not pay certain amount in connection with purchase of ration, telephone call charges and tea charges but no documentary evidence has been produced on behalf of such complainants. However, it is further not in dispute that even these complainants have deposed during departmental proceedings. During the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he had named two persons as defence witness namely Deputy Commandant S.P. Singh and Assistant Commandant Sri Sanjay Swarnkar but no direction was issued at the stage of enquiry for recording their deposition. The learned counsel submits that these witnesses were to be examined in connection with previous punishments which were given to the petitioner and he submits that these persons had also conspired with others to falsely implicate the petitioner. Further, during the course of argument it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been awarded 13 punishments for various misconducts in the past which was a part of the charge sheet involved in the present case. Arguments of the Respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand while opposing the prayer has submitted that the entire departmental proceedings has been conducted in accordance with the Rules of CISF and no procedural irregularity or otherwise as such has been pointed out by the petitioner. She further submits that there is no scope for re-appreciating the evidence adduced in the departmental enquiry and there is no perversity or any illegality in the matter of the departmental proceedings involved in the present case. She submits that considering the limited scope of interference in the departmental proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no case for interference is made out. She submits that all the orders passed by the authority, i.e. punishment order, appellate order as well as the revisional order are well reasoned orders and therefore the present writ petition may be dismissed. She submits that all the orders passed by the authority, i.e. punishment order, appellate order as well as the revisional order are well reasoned orders and therefore the present writ petition may be dismissed. The learned counsel has also submitted that considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, the respondents have taken lenient view in as much as the punishment of compulsory retirement with all pensionary benefits have been given to the petitioner although the petitioner was earlier found guilty on 13 occasions for one or the other misconduct. Findings of this Court 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case this court finds that vide charge sheet dated 20.11.2007 altogether four charges were leveled against the petitioner. Page no. 2 of the counter affidavit is quoted hereunder describing the charges: - Article of Charge-I “An act of gross misconduct, deception and indiscipline in which No. 911360266 Insp/Fire R.K. Singh of CISF Unit DVC Maithon had taken Rs. 200/- (Rupees two hundred only) during the year 2006 as loan from No. 931360219 SI/Fire Abhay Kumar Singh of CISF Unit DVC Maithon presently posted at CISF Unit RSTPP Rihandnagar and when SI/Fire Abhay Kumar Singh asked to refund the said loan amount, No. 911360266 Insp/Fire/R.K. Singh refused to return the said amount and abused SI/Fire Abhay Kumar Singh by using unparliamentary language.” Article of Charge-2 “An act of gross misconduct, deception and violation of Rule-15 (1) (b) of conduct rules, 1964 in which No. 911360266 Insp/Fire R.K. Singh of CISF Unit DVC Maithon has engaged himself in negotiation for providing loans to civilians without obtaining the previous sanction of the competent authority. For this purpose he had collected money from following personnel by giving false assurance to provide loans: SI No. Name and address Amount 1. Shri Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Late Yadunanda Singh resident of Q.No. 19/03 K type, Kali Pahadi, Maithon Rs. 2,000/- 2. Shri Manoj Kumar Saw S/o Arjun Saw resident of Area No. 4, Tempo stand More, Maithon Rs. 6000/- 3. Shri Rajesh Kumar Karmakar S/o Vijay Kumar, Qtr. No. MH-238/E, Aajad Nagar Maithon Rs. Shri Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Late Yadunanda Singh resident of Q.No. 19/03 K type, Kali Pahadi, Maithon Rs. 2,000/- 2. Shri Manoj Kumar Saw S/o Arjun Saw resident of Area No. 4, Tempo stand More, Maithon Rs. 6000/- 3. Shri Rajesh Kumar Karmakar S/o Vijay Kumar, Qtr. No. MH-238/E, Aajad Nagar Maithon Rs. 3000/- Article of Charge-3 “An act of gross misconduct, deception and tarnishing the image of Force in public in which No. 911360266 Insp/Fire/R.K. Singh of CISF Unit DVC Maithon refused to return the cost of grocery items, tea and telephone calls, which he has taken/made on loan basis, inspite of repeated requests of the shop owners. The details of the same are as under- “SI No. Name and address Amount 1. Shri Manoj Kumar Saw S/o Arjun Saw resident of Area No. 4, Tempo Stand More, Maithon Rs. 2,560/-(cost of ration) 2. Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh, S/o Late Rajendra Prasad, Area No. 4, New Market, Maithon Rs. 1309/-(Telephone call charges) 3. Shri Sukhdev Ram S/o Late Rameshwar Ram, Aampura Basti, Area No. 5, Maithon Rs. 117/-(Tea charges) Article of charge 4 “That, No. 911360266 Insp/Fire R.K. Singh of CISF Unit DVC Maithon inspite of having been awarded 13 punishments for various misconducts in the past, he has failed to correct himself and remained incorrigible.” 8. This court further finds that a show cause reply was filed by the petitioner dated 26.11.2007 denying the charges and the petitioner had also alleged conspiracy. It further appears from the counter affidavit at para 7 that a copy of the enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner on 03.04.2008 to which the petitioner had replied on 19.04.2008 and after considering the reply, the order of punishment dated 30.04.2008 was passed. The petitioner filed appeal and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2008 against which the petitioner filed revision which was dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2008. The order of punishment, appellate order and revisional order are contained at Annexures-11, 12 and 13 respectively of the writ petition. 9. It is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that the petitioner had duly participated in the departmental proceedings and the persons who had complained against the petitioner were also examined during the departmental proceedings. Admittedly the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses. 9. It is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that the petitioner had duly participated in the departmental proceedings and the persons who had complained against the petitioner were also examined during the departmental proceedings. Admittedly the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses. The grievance of the petitioner at this stage is that no documentary evidence as such has been produced to substantiate the charges. 10. Considering the nature of charge involved in the present case and the fact that the concerned persons were duly examined before the enquiry proceedings, this court is of the considered view that non production of any documentary evidence of loan to substantiate the case of the complainants is neither fatal nor makes the enquiry proceeding perverse calling for interference in the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the enquiry proceedings. 11. So far as the allegation regarding previous 13 punishment is concerned, the same is not in dispute from the side of the petitioner. It further appears that there were certain defence witnesses from the side of the petitioner and therefore it was for the petitioner to produce them before the enquiry officer. Otherwise also, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that those witnesses were to be examined in connection with the punishment which was earlier imposed against the petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that out of 13 previous punishments, 8 punishment was given by the two persons to whom he wanted to examine to prove. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was punished on 13 occasions earlier for various misconducts, therefore non-examination of those persons who have imposed punishments upon the petitioner has not caused prejudice to the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner that Abhay Kumar Singh had connived with others to victimize the petitioner also cannot be appreciated at this stage particularly when the petitioner has faced full flagged departmental enquiry. 13. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 9 SCC 471 (Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India) para-25 to 30, it is not in dispute that the writ court does not sit in appeal against the orders passed in departmental proceedings, particularly when there are concurrent findings with regard to the proved charges upon considering the materials produced before the authorities. Para 25, 26 and 28 of the aforesaid report is quoted as under:- “ I. Scope of judicial review in service matters 25. The learned counsel for the appellant spent considerable time taking us through the various evidence on record with the intention of highlighting lacunae and contradictions. We feel that such an exercise was in vain, as the threshold of interference in the present proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority. It would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome. 26. These principles are succinctly elucidated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India in the following extract: (SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13) “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal concerned is to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel this Court held at SCR pp. 728-29 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 28. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority.” 14. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority.” 14. This court is of the considered view that no material procedural irregularity has been pointed out by the petitioner and no perversity as such has been pointed out calling for any interference in the findings of the enquiry officer or punishment order passed in the departmental proceedings or appellate order or the revisional order. This court finds that the order of punishment has clearly rejected the story of conspiracy by the Deputy Commandant and Assistant Commandant CISF whom the petitioner wanted to examine as defence witness. The petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference in the departmental proceedings as well as in the impugned punishment order, appellate order and revisional order which are well reasoned orders. 15. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed. 16. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.