The quantum of punishment in a disciplinary matter is purely within the realm of the disciplinary authority. Only when the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge that no prudent person placed in the position of disciplinary authority would have imposed such a punishment, the High Court can interfere.

M. Venugopal, J.

The Petitioner/Society has preferred this writ petition praying for an issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records from the file of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court, Vellore and to quash the Award dated July 4, 2002 in I.D. No. 1280/1993.

2. The 1st Respondent/Labour Court, Vellore, while passing an Award in I.D. No. 1280/1993 dated July 4, 2002, has, among other things, observed that.... for approximately over 13 years the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has No. income and for the misconduct committed by him the aforesaid punishment itself is sufficient and for the misconduct committed by the 2nd Respondent/Claimant, there is No. necessity to award punishment once again and the denial of back wages and other benefits is a sufficient punishment and has held that the back wages and other benefits are necessarily to be denied and further it has come to the conclusion that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has been serving as Secretary for several years and that he has not taken any steps to get cooperative training and but instead of appointing him as Secretary because he has No. cooperative training, directed that he be appointed as Tester and accordingly, passed an Award-directing that from the date of come into force of Award, within two months the Petitioner/Society (Respondent in I.D.) has to reinstate the 2nd Respondent/Claimant as Tester with continuity of service but the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has been denied with the back wages and other benefits.'

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Society submits that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has committed an error in directing the reinstatement of 2nd Respondent/Claimant with continuity of service and without back wages as a Tester in the Petitioner Society and as a matter of fact, the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has failed to appreciate the seriousness of the charges levelled against him.

4. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that charges No. 1 to 7 and 10 have been held to be proved by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court which are grievous in nature because of the fact that the 2nd Respondent/Claimant has falsely entered the quantity of milk received by the Petitioner Society and the amount to be paid to the members, but these aspects of the matter have not been adverted to by the 1st Respondent/Labour Court in a proper perspective and indeed, the aforesaid proved charges amounts to clear case of theft, fraud, misappropriation and falsification of the books of accounts of the Petitioner Society for which the 2nd Respondent/Claimant must be awarded with the maximum punishment of Dismissal.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that charges No. 11, 13, 17, 18 and 20 have not been proved and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in this regard ought to be set aside.

6. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has failed to note that the only intention of writing false accounts is with a view to cause monetary loss to the Petitioner Society and unfair gain to the 2nd Respondent/Claimant and the conclusion of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that the said charges will amount to negligence and dereliction of duty is completely an erroneous one.

7. That apart, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the conclusion of the 1st Respondent/Labour Court that charge No. 11 has not been proved is an erroneous one and liable to be set aside because of the fact that the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has failed to note that the charge against the 2nd Respondent/Claimant is that he failed to show in the books of accounts the advance amount of Rs.5,874/- kept by Thiru A. Prushothaman, former President which is meant for disbursement on April 4, 1987 and the 1st Respondent/Labour Court has come to a wrong conclusion that since the said amoun