Writ Appeal No.400/2007 13.12.2011 Smt. Sadhna Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri C.S. Ujjainia, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. By filing this intra Court appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the appellant has called in question the order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.4526/2003 (s). Briefly stated, the appellant herein was working on the post of Constable in the Special Armed Force. He was issued a charge sheet dated 23.02.1996 levelling as many as three charges, which were relating to consumption of liquor while on duty, mis-behaviour with his superior officers and abusing them as also unauthorizedly remaining absent and absconding. After receipt of reply to the charge sheet, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the appellant. The enquiry officer, after recording evidence, submitted the enquiry report, holding all the three charges to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the gravity of the misconduct which was found to be proved against the appellant as also his past adverse records, inflicted upon him penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 17.06.1996. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the third respondent vide order dated 02.09.1996. The 2 said order of punishment and the appellate order were challenged by the appellant in Original Application No.251/1997 before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the said OA was transferred to this Court and was heard and dismissed as Writ Petition No.4526/2003 by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we find that the enquiry officer and the appellate authority, after appreciation of the evidence recorded in the disciplinary enquiry, reached to the conclusion that the appellant had committed the alleged misconduct. Taking into consideration his past adverse record, punishment of compulsory retirement was inflicted upon him by the Disciplinary Authority, which was maintained in departmental appeal. The aforesaid orders were challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, keeping in view the limited scope of interference in such matters, declined interference in the order of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge found that the writ petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend himself, there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the punishment awarded to the petitioner was commensurate with the gravity of charge. 3 We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The charges having been found to be proved in the departmental enquiry, in the absence of perversity in the findings and unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, no interference can be called in the same. Although learned counsel for appellant has read out the portion of the evidence of the departmental witnesses so as to suggest that the guilt is not proved, but we are not sitting over the findings of enquiry officer as an appellate Court. In our considered view, as it is not a case of “no evidence” or perverse findings of enquiry officer, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal, accordingly, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge Pithawe RC