( 1 ) A question of life-or-death-significance relating to service jurisprudence as to whether before imposing the economic death penalty of dismissal or removal from service a disciplinary authority is bound to apply his mind to the three vital considerations namely (1) as regards the nature and magnitude of the established charge (2) as regards the desirability or otherwise of retaining the Government servant in service in the context of the charges found proved against him and (3) as to whether a penalty lesser than the extreme penalty of dismissal or removal would prove adequate and several other questions have surfaced in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India instituted by a Talati-cummantri who was dismissed from service at the conclusion of a departmental proceeding. . . . . . . . . [his Lordship after discussing the evidence held that it was abundantly clear that the finding on the point of the guilt of the petitioner in respect of the different charges as also on the point of the extent of the penalty was vitiated by reason of the manifest bias on the part of Mr. Kadia both in respect of the subject matter as also in view of his personal prejudice against the petitioner. His Lordship further observed

( 2 ) BE it administration of criminal Law or the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction in departmental proceedings punishment is not and cannot be the end in itself. Punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. Whilst deliberating upon the jurisprudential dimension the following factors must be considered :1 In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged fault of an employee punishment is imposed not in order to seek retribution or to give vent to feeling of wrath. 2 The main purpose of a punishment is to correct the fault of the employee concerned by making him more alert in the future and to hold out a warning to the other employees to be careful in the discharge of their duties so that they do not expose themselves to similar punishment. 3 It is not expedient in the interest of the administration to visit every employee against whom a fault is established with the penalty of dismissal and to get rid of him. It would be counter productive to do so for it would be futile to expect to recruit employees who are so perfect that they would never commit any fault. And citizens would be deterred from joining Government service if the principle of security of service is scuttled and every employee renders himself liable to lose his job incur social stigma thereby and exposes his entire family to misery if he commits a fault. 4 In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the magnitude of the fault. Surely one cannot rationally or justly impose the same penalty for giving a slap as one would impose for homicide. 5 When different categories of penalties can be imposed in respect of the alleged fault one of which is dismissal from service the disciplinary authority per force is required to consult himself for selecting the most appropriate penalty from out of the range of penalties available that can be imposed having regard to the nature content and gravity of the default. Unless the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that having regard to the nature content and magnitude of the fault committed by the employee concerned it would be risky to retain him in Government service the maximum penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed. If a lesser penalty can be imposed without jeopardizing the interest of the administration the disciplinary authority cannot impose the maximum penalty of dismissal from service. He is bound to ask his inner voice and rational faculty whether the penalty lesser than the penalty sought to be imposed can be imposed without jeopardizing the interests of the service. 6 It cannot be overlooked that by and large it is because the maximum penalty is imposed and total ruination stares