1. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable, on 25.09.1976 and promoted as Upgradation Naik, during the year 1983. Subsequently, on 22.08.1996, he was promoted as Head Constable. Alleging that the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.98,000/-, under the guise of securing employment in Railway Protection Force Department, he was issued with a charge memo by the third respondent, on 04.08.2008, nominating one Mr.T.Selvaraj, the fourth respondent herein, as the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, he conducted enquiry, concluding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued with a second show cause notice. The petitioner gave his explanation, pointing out the glaring contradictions in the findings both on factual and technical grounds. Without considering the same, the third respondent passed the impugned order, on 23.04.2009, imposing compulsory retirement from service. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, dated 22.05.2009, elaborately pointing out the contradictions in the enquiry before the second respondent. By proceedings, dated 31.07.2009, the second respondent rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner, thereby confirming the order of compulsory retirement from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Revision Petition before the first respondent, on 03.09.2009.

2. Since the said Revision Petition filed by the petitioner was not disposed of, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing W.P.[MD].No.854 of 2010, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the Revision Petition. This Court, by order, dated 28.01.2010, disposed of the said Writ Petition giving direction to the first respondent to consider and dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. In pursuance of the order of this Court, dated 28.01.2010, the first respondent, by proceedings, dated 16.04.2010, rejected the Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner. Questioning the correctness of the above said orders, the petitioner is now before this Court with the present Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the third respondent issued a charge memo, on 04.08.2008 and without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, conducted the enquiry and concluded the same holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. He further submitted that the punishment of compulsorily retirement imposed on the petitioner is not in consonance with the alleged misconduct on his part and hence, he prayed for interference with the orders impugned.

4. The learned counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) S.K.Ganguly Vs. Union of India reported in 1985 (50) FLR 159. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

"7. ... But, in my view, the principle, recognized by different decisions of the Courts of law, is that the writ Court can certainly reappraise evidence and scan the same to find out if the conclusions, reached by the Disciplinary Authority, are reasonably based on such course of action finds support from the principle, laid down in State of Assam v. M.C.Kalita [A.I.R 1972 S.C. 2535]. ...

8. In view of the above lacunae, in the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, I cannot but hold that such findings are perverse, being either based on no evidence or being contrary to evidence or being vitiated by non consideration of relevant evidence with the result that his conclusions cannot be said to be conclusions of a reasonable mind. It is not a case of screening evidence for the purpose of determining its sufficiency or adequacy. The decisions in the case of State of A.P. v. Chitra V. Rao [1976 (32) F.L.R.44], and S.B.Goenka v. Collector [A.I.R 1971 Cal. 122.] cited by Mr.Sen, do not affect or alter the posi