The court can interfere with the punishment if it is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, and the competent authority must consider the nature of charges and overall circumstances when inflicting the appropriate punishment.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. The order of dismissal of the appellant passed by the original authority i.e., the third respondent, as confirmed by the respondents 2 and 1, who are the appellate and revisional authorities, and subsequently by a learned single Judge of this Court, is the subject matter in this appeal.

2. The appellant joined the service of Central Reserve Police Force as a Constable/Driver in the year 1986 and he was in charge of TATA Bus bearing Registration No.DILP-6034, when it was engaged for Government duty on 31.01.1995 and subsequently had met with an accident, which was not brought to the notice of the higher-ups by the appellant, in order to cover up the matter. Based on the said incident, he was placed under suspension in February, 1995, for the alleged misconduct. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued to him on 11.03.1995, framing certain charges. Appellant submitted explanation to the charges and subsequently an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.07.1995, proving the appellant guilty of the charges. Based on the said report, the appellant was dismissed from service on 011. 1995. Against the said order of dismissal, the appellant filed an appeal before the second respondent and the said appeal was also dismissed on 212. 1996. Further, the appellate order was taken in revision before the first respondent and the said revision also came to be dismissed on 111. 1997, against which Writ Petition was filed and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, this Writ Appeal is filed.

3. The main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records, coupled with the order impugned.

5. On a perusal of the material available on record and on consideration of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, what touches our conscience is, that, though the charges were held proved by the Enquiry Officer against the appellant and subsequently confirmed by the appellate authorities and also the learned single Judge, the punishment of dismissal of the appellant from service is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, as they 1 and 2 being with reference to the accident and the factum of specific instruction given by the Inspector D.M. Magade, who was the only officer available in the vehicle at the material point of time, which was disobeyed by the appellant, and the charges 3 and 4 relating to misbehaviour and tampering with the documents, such as card diary, vehicle incident form etc. Also, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Inspector was assaulted by the appellant. However, the statements of witnesses taken during the enquiry proceedings, indicating the misconduct attributed against the appellant, cannot be brushed aside, for which appropriate punishment has to be awarded, but not the maximum punishment, as ordered by the respondents.

6. Normally, this Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment. But, in a case where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, this Court can very well interfere with such punishment. In this case, the punishment of dismissal of the appellant from service is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The competent authority, while taking into account the overall factors and circumstances, has to apply its mind and look into the punishment inflicted on the appellant.

7. Under the circumstances, we remit the matter to the competent authority to look into the nature of charges and the overall circumstances for inflicting the appropriate punishment. Such a course can be done by the competent authority only and not by this Court. There are also no bad antecedents against the appellant, except the present charges. Therefore,