The punishment must be proportionate to the offense committed.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal dated 8. 4. 1999. The petitioner was a police constable who was charge-sheeted and after an enquiry, he was dismissed from service by order dated 14. 7. 1993. Against that order, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which has been rejected. Hence this petition.

( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

( 3 ) THE charge against the petitioner was that on 11. 4. 1993 while he was on duty, there was an altercation between him and another constable Baburam in which the petitioner is said to have abused and threatened Baburam. However, there was no charge that the petitioner actually physically assaulted Baburam. In the inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge.

( 4 ) THE finding of guilt is a finding of fact and we cannot Interfere with it in writ Jurisdiction. However, on the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the punishment is disproportionate to the offence. After all, the petitioner did not physically assault Baburam. Hence we set-aside the impugned dismissal order as well as the order of the Tribunal and direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated within a month of production of a copy of this order before the authority concerned but he will be deprived of 75% of his back salary and shall be given a severe warning. However, he will be given continuity of service and other consequential benefits, and 25% of his back salary from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement.

( 5 ) WITH this observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

.