The principle of proportionality is applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A punishment that is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal by (i) the Director, National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), Hyderabad (ii) Head of the Governing Body, NRSA; and (iii) the secretary, Department of Space-cum-Chairman, NRSA, Bangalore (respondents in the writ petition) is from the judgment of a learned single judge in W. P. No. 2823 of 1989, dated 21st August 1989 by which the punishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary authority-Director NRSA-----and confirmed by the Chairman, NRSA was set aside with a direction to those authorities to consider imposition of a minor penalty viz. , "withholding of increments without causing much loss in his future emoluments. "

( 2 ) THE respondent was initially appointed as an Office Assistant on 2-6-1980 in the NRSA and subsequently he was appointed by direct recruitment as an Administrative Assistant on 19th September, 1983 in which post he was regularised in due course of time at the Balanagar Office of the nrsa, Hyderabad. On 20th July, 1984 he was transferred to the Shadnagar office about which he made a representation requesting for retention at Balanagar. He was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 29-9-84 and an enquiry was ordered against him on the allegation of insubordination and disobedience in that he did not report for duty at Shadnagar office. The enquiry culminated in an order of dismissal passed on 15-4-86 which was challenged by him in W. P. No. 5323 of 1986 on the ground that the director who figured as a witness was disqualified from acting as disciplinary authority as he was likely to be biased. That writ petition was allowed by this court on 1 -6-87 with a direction that the Governing Body might delegate the power to some other authority to act as disciplinary authority and then pass appropriate orders. In consequence of that direction one shri Gopaj Ratnam, Head (Personnel and General Administration) of the governing Body of NRSA, the second appellant herein, was nominated as the disciplinary authority by the Governing Body and he after notice passed an order on 1-7-88 directing removal of the respondent from service. Challenging that order the respondent filed W. P. No. 10775 of 1988 which was disposed of by this Court on 6th August 1988 with a direction that the respondent may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority. The main ground urged in that writ petition viz. , that Shri Gopal Ratnam was not competent in law to act as disciplinary authority, was negatived and that view was confirmed on appeal by a Division Bench in W. A. No. , 1351/88. Thereafter the appellate authority passed an order on the appeal preferred by the respondent, confirming the order of removal passed by Shri Gopal ratnam. Challenging the legality of that order the respondent filed W. P. No. 2823/89. The two contentions raised before the learned single judge are : (1) Shri Gopal Ratnam was not competent in law to act as disciplinary authority; and (2) the punishment of removal was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged acts of misconduct. The first contention was negatived by the learned judge observing that the appointment of Shri Gopal Ratnam was made correctly in compliance with the directions issued by this Court and that the validity of the appointment was also confirmed by a Division bench of this Court in W. A. No. 1351/88. As regards the second contention that the punishment of removal was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged acts of misconduct, the learned judge observed that when the respondent was transferred from Balanagar office to Shadnagar he should have reported for duty at Shadnagar and then asked for retransfer to Balanagar and his failure to do so could not be construed as a serious misconduct, but it was only an act of indiscretion on his part. On that view the learned judge held that the removal from service :"is extremely harsh and the same is not warranted at all. It is certainly disproportionate to the indiscreet act of disobedience on the part of the petition