JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The petitioner was employed on the post of Chief Research and Development Manager in Bharat Refractories Ltd. at Bhilai. On the basis of a disciplinary enquiry he was dismissed from service by order issued on December 5, 1994. Only two articles of charges, number 2 partly and number 4 fully was found proved against him. He preferred a departmental appeal to the Board of Directors which has also been dismissed on April 18, 1996. 2. Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me through the relevant findings on article of charges No. 2 and 4 from the enquiry report. Charge No. 2 was in substance that by disobeying the instructions of the higher authorities he did not make a random checking of quantity of bricks. The petitioner's defence was that being the Head of the Department of Quality Control, it was not his part of the duty to make a random checking of quantity and such an instruction issued to his department was objected to by him. The other charge Article No. 4 was that he sent a letter of protest with regard to the work assigned to him and at the same time marked a copy of the same to the Officers' Association. This was held to be an act of misconduct on his part. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to justify the action of the petitioner in relation to both the articles of charges. It is also submitted that the punishment of dismissal for the two charges mentioned above is shockingly harsh and disproportionate. 4. Shri P.R. Bhave, learned counsel appearing for the Company made some attempts to justify the action of the respondents taken in the disciplinary proceeding. The argument in reply advanced is that clear instructions were issued to the petitioner and he was also expected to make random checking of quantity of bricks alongwith quality. It is also expected of him to have issued necessary instructions to the staff under him. 5. Without going into the merits of the allegation whether those are satisfactorily proved or not, this Court is inclined to interfere in the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner on the ground that the punishment of dismissal imposed for the two charges is shockingly disproportionate and harsh. 6. There are only two courses open to me. 5. Without going into the merits of the allegation whether those are satisfactorily proved or not, this Court is inclined to interfere in the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner on the ground that the punishment of dismissal imposed for the two charges is shockingly disproportionate and harsh. 6. There are only two courses open to me. First to interfere in the quantum of punishment in these proceedings and the second to send the matter to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the question of quantum of punishment. (See B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1996-I-LLJ-1231) (SC). 7. It would have been proper for this Court to adopt the second available course. But since the petitioner is out of employment and without payment of salary from December 5, 1994, remitting the case to the disciplinary or the appellate authority for reconsidering the question of quantum of punishment would result in further punishment and uncertainty in the matter of services of the petitioner. This Court, therefore, proposes to adopt the first alternative. The impugned orders dated December 5, 1994 (Annex. P.1) of dismissal of the petitioner from service and the order dated April 18, 1996 (Annex. P.2) passed in appeal are hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service but he shall be entitled only to half arrears of salary payable to him for the period he was out of employment pursuant to the impugned orders of dismissal. It is made clear that for all other purposes of his service the impugned order of dismissal and the order passed in appeal shall have no adverse effect on his seniority and chances of promotion. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.