The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the misconduct, and courts should remit matters back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration if disproportionate penalties are found.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under

Annexure-1.

4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.04.09.2017 under Annexure-1, Petitioner duly filed his written statement of defence and participated in the enquiry.

4.1. Even though in course of enquiry, Petitioner proved his stand that he was not involved with regard to the alleged charges, but without proper appreciation, the enquiry officer held the Petitioner guilty of the charges while submitting the report on 12.06.2018 so enclosed to the 1st show cause notice under Annexure-3.

4.2. It is contended that on being provided with the 1^st show cause notice under Annexure-3, Petitioner submitted his reply under Annexure-4, indicating therein that on the face of the charges framed against the Petitioner he was found liable to refund a sum of Rs.640/- only basing on the audit report prepared with regard to functioning of the store in question. But without proper appreciation of the same, 2^nd show cause notice was issued under Annexure-3, by proposing therein to impose the punishment of two Black Marks, for gross-misconduct and mis-appropriation of Government money.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner submitted his reply to the 2nd show cause under Annexure-7, but without considering the stand so taken, the proceeding was disposed of with passing of the order of punishment vide order dtd.26.05.2021 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of one Black Mark in place of two Black Marks, so proposed in the 2^nd show cause.

4.4. It is further contended that challenging the order of punishment so passed under Annexure-8, Petitioner though moved the appellate authority under Annexure-9 but the appellate authority initially when rejected the appeal with passing of a non-speaking order, the same was set aside by this Court in its order dtd.08.09.2022 in W.P.(C) No.22728 of 2022.

4.5. However, even after remand of the matter, the appellate authority vide order dtd.18.11.2022 under Annexure-13, confirmed the order of punishment so passed under Annexure-8 without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Petitioner all through.

4.6. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that on the face of the audit report available under Annexure-11, since Petitioner was found guilty with regard to non-deposit of a sum of Rs.640/- during his tenure as in charge of the store, on the face of such irregularity committed by the Petitioner, imposition of the punishment of one Black Mark vide order under Annexure-8, confirmed vide order under Annexure-13 is disproportionate to the alleged charges.

4.7. It is accordingly contended that the punishment of one Black Mark so imposed vide the impugned order under Annexure-8, and confirmed vide order under Annexure-13 requires interference of this Court.

4.8. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to the following decisions in the case of:-

1. Union of India and Ors. versus Const. Sunil Kumar 2023 LIVE LAW (SC) 49.

2. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar , (2003) 4 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 468 : 2003 SCC On Line SC 202.

3. Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh … Petitioner versus Bihar Legislative Council (Through Secretary) and Ors. 2025 INSC 264

4. S.R. Tewari v. Union of India , (2013) 6 SCC 602 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 893 : 2013 SCC On