JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the finding of delinquency and punishment imposed upon petitioner pursuant to a Departmental Enquiry. 2. Petitioner joined the employment of the respondent Corporation as a Tracer on 7-12-1967. Applying for and having obtained employment in the Security Department of the Corporation, he took over on 1-7-1972 as a Security Assistant. On 13-8-1982 at about 3.00 p.m. a telephone message was received for one S.B. Naik. S.B. Naik was not available, for which reason, the Telephone Operator Mrs. S.S. Katdare-passed on the call to the petitioner to be received by him in the room of Shri Chavan. This room i.e. Mr. Chavan's room, was on the second floor and petitioner was called to the said room as the extension line in his room was out of order. Information about the call to be received by the petitioner in Mr. Chavan's room was sent through a Peon. Petitioner refused to attend the call in Mr. Chavan's room and insisted that he be allowed to talk by using the instrument at the telephone board receiver. This receiver was in the cabin of Mrs. Katdare. She declined the request made by the petitioner which annoyed him and in retaliation he latched the door of the cabin of Mrs. Katdare from outside. It was only upon the intervention of Mr. Naik that the door was unlatched. Mrs. Katdare reported the doings of the petitioner and in due course a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him. At the enquiry several witnesses were examined and the Enquiry Officer found the delinquency proved. As to the punishment he recommended withholding of petitioner's next increment for a period of two years with permanent effect on his future increments. The Enquiry Officer's report together with the recommendation in relation to punishment was placed before the Additional Municipal Commissioner. Affirming the finding of delinquency, the learned Additional Municipal Commissioner held that the punishment proposed was unduly lax. He therefore reversed the punishment to reduction in rank for a period of two years. The next rank to which the petitioner was reduced, was that of a Head Security Guard. 3. In the petition exception is taken to the finding of delinquency recorded against the petitioner. It is contended that there was no evidence worth the name to inspire confidence. The next rank to which the petitioner was reduced, was that of a Head Security Guard. 3. In the petition exception is taken to the finding of delinquency recorded against the petitioner. It is contended that there was no evidence worth the name to inspire confidence. The incident had been reported quite some time after 13-8-1982. The Departmental Enquiry itself had been initiated eight months later. Right from the time the petitioner came to the Security Department, he had been subjected to harassment by the other officers and employees of the said department. These gentlemen were involved in all sorts of mal-practices to which the petitioner refused to be a party. With a view to wreak vengeance a Departmental Enquiry had been initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer's recommendation as to punishment had been departed from at the instance of a Deputy Municipal Commissioner inimically disposed towards him. To have accepted material coming from such sources was to have committed a perversity. The Additional Municipal Commissioner had no good reason to enhance the punishment. The punishment imposed by him was grossly disproportionate to the delinquency allegedly established against the petitioner. 4. Petitioner, soon after the filing of the petitione obtained an interim stay of the operation of the punishment on him. The result therefore is that he continues to be a Security Assistant. On behalf of the respondent Corporation two contentions are advanced by learned Counsel. First, it is contended that the petitioner could have sought a reference under section 2-A r.w. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In such a proceeding the Court or Tribunal could have gone into the details and been in a better position to reach an appropriate decision. Next, the impugned order could not be said to be contrary to law. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer rested on evidence and it was not open to this Court to re-appraise the material. The Additional Municipal Commissioner, being the Punishing Authority, had taken all aspects into consideration and imposed on petitioner what he thought to be an appropriate penalty for the lapse established against him. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. The Additional Municipal Commissioner, being the Punishing Authority, had taken all aspects into consideration and imposed on petitioner what he thought to be an appropriate penalty for the lapse established against him. 5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. The plea that petitioner could have moved for reference under section 2-A r.w. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 need not detain us for the existence of an alternative remedy is not always a bar to the invoking of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. More than five years have elapsed since the filing of the petition and it would be too late in the day to reject the petition on the ground of petitioner not having exhausted the statutory remedies - assuming, that these be available to him. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner impugns the finding of delinquency on the ground that the backdrop clearly established the existence of a determined clique bent upon somehow getting his client into trouble. Exhibit A purports to be a list of petitioner's movements from 1-7-1972 to 27-6-1983. The contention is that petitioner was not allowed to work in peace at any station and that he was subjected to transfers every now and then. I cannot agree that this would give rise to the inference of a clique working against the petitioner. Next it was argued that the witnesses examined at the enquiry were those who harboured an animus against the petitioner. The existence of animus was alleged by the petitioner in the written statement given by him at the end of the examination of the witnesses. It was argued that the petitioner being a lay-man he should not have been expected to make direct suggestions of animosity to the witnesses examined at the enquiry. I do not know what the Enquiry Officer was expected to do. Assuming that petitioner was a lay-man and as helpless as it tried to be made out, the Enquiry Officer certainly could not be expected to call back the witnesses and ask them what they had to say on the subject of animus alleged in the written statement submitted by the petitioner. Next, it was argued that there was no direct evidence to show that petitioner had latched the door thus confining Mrs. Katdare from outside. Mrs. Next, it was argued that there was no direct evidence to show that petitioner had latched the door thus confining Mrs. Katdare from outside. Mrs. Katdare found herself inside the cabin the door of which was latched from outside. Putting two and two together she assumed this to be the work or petitioner. If petitioner had not been guilty of latching the door from outside, Mr. Naik would not have called upon him to unlatch the door, prefacing the direction with a query as to why he had bolted the door from outside. The query incorporated an assertion of Mr. Naik having seen the petitioner closing the door of Mrs. Katdare's cabin from outside. In any case it is not as if the rigid rules of Civil of Criminal trials apply to reception of evidence at departmental enquiries. Inferences, assumptions and guesses can take place of direct evidence, subject of course to the condition that these are reasonable. Here, the bolting of the door from outside followed quick in succession to the exchanges between Mrs. Katdare and the petitioner. This was proof enough of an inference that petitioner had been responsible for bolting the door of Mrs. Katdare's cabin from outside. It was argued that the act had been reported late and a Departmental Enquiry initiated much later. What the consequence of the delayed report amounted to, was something for the Enquiry Officer to rule upon. He did not consider the delay to be fatal and being a question of fact, it will not be open to writ Court to take a different view of what is a possible conclusion. As to the delay in the initiation of enquiry, that has nothing to do with the commission or otherwise of the lapse attributed to the petitioner. A reference is made to some subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the authorities taking different views. This is not in any way relevant to rule upon the delinquency and punishment imposed in this case. 7. Where the petitioner succeeds is on the ground of proportionality. It is conceded that the petitioner's act of wrongfully confining Mrs. Katdare was not motivated by any immoral or criminal considerations. He was annoyed with the refusal of Mrs. Katdare to allow him to use the telephone board receiver. To give vent to his annoyance, he latched the cabin of the Telephone Receptionist from outside. It is conceded that the petitioner's act of wrongfully confining Mrs. Katdare was not motivated by any immoral or criminal considerations. He was annoyed with the refusal of Mrs. Katdare to allow him to use the telephone board receiver. To give vent to his annoyance, he latched the cabin of the Telephone Receptionist from outside. This was a childish tantrum and should have been treated as such. It is said that the wrongful confining had a deleterious effect upon Mrs. Katdare. Possibly so but reversion is too harsh a punishment. With respect to the Additional Municipal Commissioner he took an unusually severe view of the delinquency. Petitioner's so-called "some-what blemished record" had no bearing on the subject and should not have led to the imposition of the harsh punishment that is impugned in the present case. The question surviving is as to how the punishment is to be substituted. To my mind while a reprimand would have served in the normal circumstances, the Enquiry Officer and the Additional Municipal Commissioner have taken into consideration all aspects of the matter. Some difference should be shown to their views. I therefore propose to restore the punishment recommended by the Enquiry Officer, subject only to one modification viz. that the withholding of the increment for two years will be without effect upon petitioner's future increments. This punishment shall take effect as from the month commencing from 1-2-1990. Rule is partially made absolute in these terms, with parties being left to bear their own costs. Rule made partially absolute. -----