JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- 'to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declaring the letter No. B15015/CISF/ANU/SS/2010/1907, dated 29.3.2010 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declare the order of the appellate authority order No. V15014/LR/Appeal/IJ/SS/2010/570 dated 30.07.2010 received by the petitioner on 21.08.2010, as illegal and arbitrary (iii) declare the order of the Revisional Authority Order No. V-11014/112/L&R/2010-642 Dated 16.5.2011 received by the Petitioner on 27.5.2011, as illegal and arbitrary and (iv) consequently set aside the proceedings with a further direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and to pass such other or further orders.......' 2. Brief facts of the case are that: The petitioner was joined as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (for short 'CISFT') on 2.3.1998 and was transferred to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in the month of July, 2007. On 18.07.2009 while he was working in the B-Shift and performing the duty on Vehicle Material Checking duty at B.C. Old Out Material Gate from 13.00 hours to 21.00 hours, after reporting for duty, he was deployed to perform tender duty at civil construction office at opening of the tenders. As per orders of Shift In-charge, the petitioner has assisted two duty officers viz., HC-GD B Talukdar and Lady Constable Kum Meenakshi. While the petitioner was on duty, he was called to a spot where the Commandant was standing with one leg on piece of concrete stone and upon his reporting, questioned about the money kept under the stone and asked as to whom it belongs to. Then the petitioner replied in negative since he is not aware of any money being kept there by anybody. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to shift office where they recovered a sum of Rs. 32/- from the pocket of the petitioner and there the petitioner explained that he carried Rs. 40/- out of which Rs. 8/- were spent for his personal consumption. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension with Memorandum of charge. It is further stated that on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.08.2009. 32/- from the pocket of the petitioner and there the petitioner explained that he carried Rs. 40/- out of which Rs. 8/- were spent for his personal consumption. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension with Memorandum of charge. It is further stated that on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.08.2009. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 4.11.2009 holding that the charges leveled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his written representation on 24.2.2010 to the 2nd respondent. Being not satisfied with the same, the 2nd respondent, vide impugned final order, dated 29.03.2010, had awarded punishment of compulsory retirement from service with full pension and gratuity with immediate effect and further ordered that the period of suspension from 18.7.2009 to the date of receipt of that order will be treated as Suspension Only (NON-DUTY). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Inspector General-1st respondent on 26.04.2010 and vide order dated 30.07.2010 confirmed the punishment and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 21.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 30422 of 2010 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 8.12.2010 dismissed the writ petition and given liberty to the petitioner avail alternative remedy available under Section 9(2)(A) of the CISF Act, by preferring a revision to the Directorate General. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a revision petition and the same was rejected vide order No. V-11014/112/L&R/2010-642, dated 16.05.2011, which was communicated to the petitioner on 27.05.2011. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents denying all the averments made in the petition and contended that the Deputy Commandant, who instituted the D.E. was of considered opinion that the petitioner committed a gross misconduct involving himself in collection of money illegally and he deserves to be imposed major penalty. Therefore, in accordance with sub-rule 20(1) of Rule 36 of CISF Rules 2001, the Deputy Commandant, VSP Vizag has forwarded D.E case filed 'A' &'B' along with report of enquiry officer to DIG/SZ Chennai with a request to take suitable action in the proceedings. Thereafter, without considering the representation of the petitioner, awarded punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement from Service' with full pension and Gratuity in accordance with Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 vide final order dated 29.03.2010. Thereafter, without considering the representation of the petitioner, awarded punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement from Service' with full pension and Gratuity in accordance with Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 vide final order dated 29.03.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the same was dismissed. It is further stated that without availing further departmental remedy i.e., by way of filing revision petition to the respective authority, he had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 30422 of 2010 and the same was dismissed by this Court at the stage of admission with a direction to the petitioner to prefer revision petition to DG/CISF as alternative remedy available to him under Section 9(2A) of CISF Act, 1968. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition and the Revisional Authority had confirmed the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority which was upheld by the appellate authority, rejected the revision petition vide order dated 16.05.2011. It is further stated that the petitioner was serving in a security organization that too in an Armed Force of Union. His prime aim and motive is to give better protection and security to the Government undertaking where he has been physically deployed. By virtue of his experience and length of service, he is expected to exhibit high standard of Integrity, loyalty and honesty to his juniors to emulate but he has miserably failed on this count. It is further stated that during the departmental proceeding it was clearly established that the petitioner was involved in collection of illegal money by unfair means. By this act of dishonesty and misconduct, the petitioner deserves for a very harsh punishment but the disciplinary authority by taking into account the length of service rendered by the petitioner and his responsibility towards his family members while arriving at a final decision has awarded the punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement from service' with full pension and gratuity vide final order dated 29.03.2010 which is well commensurate with the gravity of offence. Thereafter, the IG, CISF, SS Chennai while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner in the instant case observed that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved with adequate evidence and the penalty awarded to him by the disciplinary authority is found commensurate with the gravity of the charge. Thereafter, the IG, CISF, SS Chennai while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner in the instant case observed that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved with adequate evidence and the penalty awarded to him by the disciplinary authority is found commensurate with the gravity of the charge. As such, the appellate authority without finding any cogent reason to interfere with the penalty awarded to the petitioner rejected the revision petition of the petitioner being devoid of merit. Hence the contention of the petitioner against the order of disciplinary as well as appellate authority is not at all acceptable. It is also stated that since the petitioner has already been paid all the pensionary benefits and his pension payment order has also been released by Pay and Accounts Officer, RPAO, Chennai vide its letter, dated 19.10.2010, the filing of the present writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement from service, has no ground for consideration. The petitioner being a member of a disciplined force entrusted with the responsibility of protecting property of Public Sector Undertaking, he displayed conspicuous lack of integrity deserving severe punishment. However, he has been given liberal treatment considering his age and length of service. Hence, the order passed by the respondent is found legally fair and justified. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, this Court observed that the petitioner joined as a Constable in the respondent Force and a charge sheet was issued on the ground of misconduct and dishonesty of a member of an Armed Force of CISF Unit. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.08.2009. Being not satisfied with the same, the 2nd respondent awarded compulsory retirement of the petitioner dated 29.03.2010, and thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 1st respondent and the same was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred WP No. 30422 of 2010 before this Court and the same was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him under Section 9(2A) of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Act 1968. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred revision before the 4th respondent and the same was rejected vide order dated 16.05.2011 without assigning cogent reasons. 6. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred revision before the 4th respondent and the same was rejected vide order dated 16.05.2011 without assigning cogent reasons. 6. On perusing the material available on record, it is observed that the enquiry officer has not considered the admissible evidence of PWs. 2 to 4. PE.1, who is the Commandant deposed in his cross examination that he did not put the signature in the seizure list as a witness and he was not presented at the time of preparation of seizure list. He has admitted in his cross examination that he did not see the petitioner collecting money illegal at duty post, but when he reached B.C. Gate, he observed that the petitioner was moving the stone under which money was concealed the others were not checked physically and he has not received any complaint administering petitioner about collecting money illegally. PW. 2 to PW. 4 have categorically stated that they did not see the Charged Official collecting money from anybody and concealing the money under the stone/concrete brick. Therefore, there is no evidence of collection and keeping the money beneath the concrete stone. Without assigning any cogent reasons and without application of mind, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 came to a conclusion that the allegation of misconduct the petitioner is proved and blindly imposed punishment of Compulsory retirement from service. Therefore, the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are contrary to the admissible evidence available on record. Even assuming that the excess of pocket money of Rs. 22/- is considered, it will be a negligent or mistake, but not a misconduct, viewed from any angle, the evidence clearly establishes that the said allegation is not proved and even assuming that there is excess of Rs. 22/- as pocket money and the punishment imposed of compulsory retirement is disproportionate to the charge alleged to have been proved. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Mahindra and Mahindra Limited Vs. N.B Narawade 2005 LAWSuit (SC) 329, wherein, it was held in Para-20 that: '20. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. It is no doubt true that after introduction of Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount of discretion is vested with the labour court/Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded by the Management where the concerned workman is found guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion has been very well defined by the various judgments of this Court referred to herein above and it is certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the absence of any such factor existing, the Labour Court can not by way of sympathy alone exercise the power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the punishment. As noticed herein above atleast in two of the cases cited before us, i.e. Orissa Cement Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills (supra), this Court held: 'punishment of dismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate.' In this case all the forums below have held that the language used by the workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion that the language used by the workman is such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such abusive language against a superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any extenuating factor referred to herein above.' 8. From a reading of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence, or the past conduct of the workman which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. 9. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders, which are challenged before this Court against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions: i) The impugned Proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide No. B15015/CISF/ANU/SS/2010/1907, dated 29.03.2010; the order of appellate authority-1st respondent vide No. V15014/LR/Appeal/IJ/SS/2010/570, dated 30.07.2010 and the order of the revisional authority vide No. V-11014/112/L&R/2010-642, dated 16.05.2011 are hereby set aside. ii) Further, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service of 50% of the back wages and with all consequential benefits in accordance with law; The above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.