Judgment :- M. S. Liberhan, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of an order of the Hon'ble single Judge dated 29.1.1997, by which the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein seeking reinstatement was allowed. 2. In order to dispose of the appeal, it would be expedient to refer to the undisputed facts which run thus : The first respondent was employed with the appellant and was charge-sheeted on the charges of his failure to recover Rs. 57, 252 due from a customer to the appellant, misappropriated p. 750 tons of paddy, caused deficiency of 21.085 tons of rice at various points of time. Enquiry was held against the first respondent and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges stand proved. Respondent was dismissed. Industrial dispute was raised. The Labour Court, after confirming the finding that the charges were proved, affirmed the dismissal order. The first respondent challenged the order of the Labour Court in the writ petition. Honourable single Judge affirmed the findings of the Labour Court as well as the Enquiry Officer. 3. The Honourable single Judge, while dealing with the question of imposition of punishment held : "5. The law is clear that any punishment imposed on the delinquent is the writ petitioner herein should be corresponding to the proved charges. Here, the proved charges are finance irregularities. The first charge relates to non-collection of money from the customers in a sum of Rs. 95, 000. The non-collection of money from the customer is not a grave irregularity, because on account of that the respondent did not incur any loss. With regard to the other vital proved charge is misappropriation of Rs. two lakhs. It is however, a proved mistake. Therefore, for the proved misconduct of this nature it is for me to decide whether the punishment of dismissal from service is just and proper or not. 6. It is an admitted fact that he misappropriated the paddy bags amount in terms of money for about two lakhs. If that is the case, in the natural course, the management ought to have given a police complaint against the writ petitioner. There is no record to show that they have not registered any criminal case against the writ petitioner and also there is no record to show that he was punished with severe punishment previously during the course of his service. There is no record to show that they have not registered any criminal case against the writ petitioner and also there is no record to show that he was punished with severe punishment previously during the course of his service. Having considered the entire material available on record, I am clearly of the view that it is just and proper to revert the workman-writ petitioner herein to the original post in which he was appointed i.e. Office Assistant. With regard to the benefits, the writ petitioner is entitled to back wages together with all attendant benefits." 4. From a reading of the findings returned, it is discernible that the Honourable single Judge observed that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges attributed to the delinquent for the first respondent. It was also observed that non-collection of money is not a grave irregularity and that criminal case should have been registered in the natural course by the management, as the value of the misappropriated paddy bags was Rs. two lakhs, and since that has not been done and as there were no previous record of punishment, the punishment of dismissal is inproportionate. Resultantly, the Honourable single Judge reinstated the petitioner with back wages. 5. On our considered view, it has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that while invoking the provisions of S. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, to substitute our view on the quantum of punishment, the same has to be pleaded before the Labour Court, which was not done in the case in hand. Be that as it may, ordinarily, the quantum of punishment would not be interfered with while exercising writ jurisdiction unless and until the same is unconscionable or justice and equity so demands. Mere non-registration of a criminal charges will not absolve the delinquent of the serious charge of misappropriation of the paddy almost to the tune of Rs. 2, 00, 000. The charge stood proved before the Enquiry Officer and was affirmed by the Labour Court. Even the findings have not been set aside by the Honourable single Judge. Merely letting the delinquent with a punishment of removal from service and not prosecuting criminally by itself, would not make the punishment awarded by the employer as unconscionable or disproportionate to the charges attributed to him. Even the findings have not been set aside by the Honourable single Judge. Merely letting the delinquent with a punishment of removal from service and not prosecuting criminally by itself, would not make the punishment awarded by the employer as unconscionable or disproportionate to the charges attributed to him. With due respect to the Hon'ble single Judge, we cannot subscribe to the view that non-collection of money from the customer cannot be termed as a grave irregularity as an abstract proposition. In fact, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it may not be so, but at the same time, we may hasten to add that non-discharge of duties faithfully by not collecting the money from the customer, compelling the employer to file civil suit etc., itself is a dereliction of duty, by which the employer has lost faith in the delinquent. In such circumstances, where charges of misappropriation are proved, the employee failed to discharge his duty diligently and the employer has lost faith in the employee, one cannot say that the punishment of dismissal awarded can be termed to be disproportionate for the charges attributed. As a necessary corollary, in view of the observations made above, we do not agree with the ground on which the Honourable single Judge has come to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal awarded against the first respondent is disproportionate to the charges attributed to him. 6. The order of dismissal cannot be termed to be unconscionable. We are of the considered view that in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, we cannot substitute our view with respect to the punishment to that of the employer, unless the punishment is really unconscionable or disproportionate to the charges attributed. 7. In view of the observations made above, the writ appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Hon'ble single Judge is set aside and the award of the Labour Court affirming the dismissal of the First respondent is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs. C.M.P. No. 5317 of 1997 is dismissed.