S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner who was holding the post of driver in the Corporation filed this petition before this Court challenging the order dated 14-7-1983 passed by the appellate authority in the matter of disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner was assigned duty to take a party in a bus of the Corporation from Ahmedabad to Dhandhuka on 12-2-1981 and to bring it back to the Ahmedabad. The petitioner has taken the party from Ahmedabad to Dhanduka and after dropping the party at a destination he had not taken party back to the Ahmedabad. It was considered to be serious misconduct and a charge-sheet was given to the petitioner bearing No. 1554 of 1981. The petitioner thereafter submitted before the authority that he suddenly fell ill and as such he was not in a position to take party back to Ahmedabad. The enquiry was conducted in the matter by the inquiry officer and the charges were found proved against the petitioner. After the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer the petitioner was given a show cause notice and thereafter he was dismissed from the services vide order dated 27-1-1983. Against this order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority of the respondent. The appellate authority has considered the matter. So far as the decision with regard to misconduct part is concerned, the same has been affirmed, but the punishment of the dismissal was considered to be disproportionate to the guilt. The punishment of the dismissal was ordered to be substituted by the punishment of reduction in the pay from Rs. 424. 00 to Rs. 388. 00 with effect from 9-6-1983. The period of dismissal of the petitioner till the date of reinstatement was ordered to be as leave without pay and it has further been ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to any increment for the next four years with permanent future effects. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellate authority when passed an order for reinstatement could not have awarded any penalty. Carrying further his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that once the order of reinstatement has been passed by the authority, it is clear that it has considered that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct. Carrying further his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that once the order of reinstatement has been passed by the authority, it is clear that it has considered that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct. I do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Though the order is in Gujarati, but I taken translation of it from the learned advocate for the petitioner. On reading of the order passed by the appellate authority it is clear that insofar as misconduct is concerned it was not interfered with by the said authority. The appellate authority has only interfered with penalty part which has been awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and the same was considered to be harsh and excessive and the appellate authority substituted penalty as aforesaid for dismissal. ( 3 ) IN view of this fact, it is not correct to say on the part of the petitioner that he has been exonerated of the charges levelled against him by the appellate authority. Naturally, when the appellate authority has not maintained the order of dismissal of the petitioner the order of dismissal has to be quashed and from this it could not be taken that petitioner has been exonerated of the charges. There is fallacy in this contention of the petitioner. In case it would have been the case of reinstatement of the petitioner by the appellate authority by exonerating him of the charges then where was an occasion for the appellate authority to give penalty of reduction of pay and withholding of increment for a future period. The very fact that the petitioner has been given penalty makes it clear that the appellate authority has accepted that the petitioner has committed misconduct. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the penalty given by the appellate authority is also harsh and excessive. This contention is devoid of any merits. It is not permissible for this Court to go into the question of penalty to be imposed in the given case on proved misconduct by the disciplinary or appellate authority and more so when appellate authority in this case has gone into and decided this question in appeal. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. v. Samerandra Kishore Endow and Ors. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. v. Samerandra Kishore Endow and Ors. , reported in JT 1996 (1) SC 217 held that in the matter of imposition of punishment or penalty which can be lawfully imposed on proved misconduct of the employee, the High Court has no power to substitute its own discretion of the disciplinary. It has further been held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to impose any punishment to meet with the ends of justice. In the matter of punishment which has to be imposed or the penalty which can be lawfully imposed on a proved misconduct are exclusively within the discretion of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. In the matter of penalty or punishment to be imposed on proved misconduct this Court has no power of judicial review. In the present case, as stated above, the appellate authority has considered the question of the appropriate penalty to be imposed and it was within his discretion to decide on the question of excessive and harsh penalty and to award the appropriate penalty for proved misconduct to the deliquent. ( 4 ) IN the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. .