The High Court has limited power to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a Disciplinary Authority. The High Court can only interfere if the punishment is so disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that it shocks the conscience of the court or if the decision-making process was flawed.

( 1 ) THE respondent joined the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) as a Junior Engineer on 15th April, 1981. He was posted in City Zone as a Junior Engineer on 20th April, 1981 and remained as such till 2nd November, 1982. The respondent was placed under suspension on 2nd November, 1982 in connection with a Departmental case with which we are not concerned. It was noticed that there was unauthorized construction of four storeyed market at Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor at premises No. 1366/5 Maliwara within the jurisdiction/area of respondent. Mr. Ram Kishore, Junior Engineer booked the said unauthorised construction and lodged the FIR on 9th November, 1982. Ram Kishore had taken over as Junior Engineer from the respondent on 3rd November, 1982. On 8th December, 1982, one Mr. P. K. Jain, Junior Engineer (Building) inspected the site and found and noted the unauthorised construction. The show cause notice was also issued to the owner - builder in respect of the unauthorised construction.

( 2 ) THE respondent was served with a charge-sheet on 8th December, 1983. The charge against the respondent, inter alia, was that during the year 1982 he committed gross mis-conduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, inasmuch as with mala fide intention he did not book the aforesaid unauthorised construction during his tenure as Junior Engineer. It may also be noticed that Ram Kishore had also been proceeded with departmentally and was charge-sheeted for the unauthorised construction that took place between 9th November, 1982 and 8th December, 1982. A Director of Enquiry was appointed. On the basis of the material placed on record and testimony of the witnesses produced before the Enquiry Officer, he came to the conclusion that the statement of allegations as contained in the charge-sheet had been proved against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority in terms of notice dated 25th November, 1985 proposed to inflict the respondent penalty of dismissal from service. On 10th October, 1986, the Disciplinary Authority after giving personal hearing to the respondent confirmed the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority, inter alia, held that considering that it was a case of huge, commercial unauthorised construction, it was the duty of the respondent - Junior Engineer to prevent it and take appropriate action against it; he has failed miserably in discharging his duties and thereby helped the builder and evidently, it could not have been done without his connivance with the builder. On 2nd February, 1988 the Appellate Authority, after hearing the respondent and perusing of the record dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent. The Appellate Authority, inter alia, observed that he was unable to accept the plea of the respondent that unauthorised construction of such a magnitude had not come up during the period when he was the Incharge of the area. The Appellate Authority did not find any justification to interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority.

( 3 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances, writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed by the respondent challenging the finding of the Enquiry Officer and questioning the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him.

( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge observing in the impugned judgment that the writ court does not sit as a court of appeal has declined to set aside the Enquiry Report. Considering, however, the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that lessor penalty deserved to be inflicted. The learned Single Judge Took into consideration, as a mitigating circumstance for awarding lessor punishment to the respondent, the fact of the Enquiry Officer having failed to take into consideration the statement and the report of one Mr. Jolly. The impugned judgment holds the the Enquiry Officer has failed to take into considerati