D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) SHRI Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer had suggested a minor punishment but the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the same and had proposed a major punishment and had inflicted the punishment of dismissal. He contends that such order can be passed only after recording reason. In this case though reason has been recorded but it does not satisfy the test. He contends that the disciplinary authority could not disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer as well as with the punishment proposed. He next contends that the punishment should be proportionate to the charges proved. Here in this case the punishment was disproportionate. In as much as it was a sheer mistake of the identification made by the Sabapati of panchayat who had identified a wrong person. Therefore, he should not be punished so severely. On these grounds he prays for quashing of the punishment inflicted on the petitioner pursuant to the domestic enquiry held against him. ( 2 ) SHRI Q. H. Slddiqui, learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, contends that it is open to the disciplinary authority to disagree either with the finding of the enquiry officer or with the proposed punishment. However, he agrees that such disagreement should be supported by some reason which should be reflected in the order. According to him the order reflects suffidient reason and that the petitioner was also given opportunity to show cause against the punishment proposed. He further contends that the enquiry officer is not supposed to propose punishment. Such proposal is redundant. The disciplinary authority is free to propose any punishment having regard to the finding of guilt and gravity of the charges. According to him the employer had lost his confidence on the petitioner since he had sanctioned loan in favour of a wrong person and that too through a wrong document relating to security. The sum of loan may be nominal but seriousness or gravity of the lapses cannot be overlooked. It is the business of the employer which is to be secured and it is the consideration of the employer whether he should be retained or not. According to him, the punishment is not disproportionate. ( 3 ) 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent at length. It is the business of the employer which is to be secured and it is the consideration of the employer whether he should be retained or not. According to him, the punishment is not disproportionate. ( 3 ) 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent at length. ( 4 ) IN the decision cited by Mr. Uma Kant being the case of Kamta Prasad v. State of U. P, and others, 1999 (1) ESC 387 (All), it was held that: "8. So far as the question of giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the enquiry report is concerned, it is well settled that it is not necessary to give opportunity to the delinquent afresh in such a situation, but at the same time while disagreeing with the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority is required to assign reasons for such disagreement with the enquiry report that too on the basis of the materials on record. The disciplinary authority cannot rely upon anything which is not part of the record nor can he examine any witness who was not examined at all in the enquiry proceedings. Even if he proposes to examine any witnesses, he cannot at all do so while disagreeing with the enquiry report since he was not holding an enquiry. He cannot rely on any additional evidence to base his reasons to disagree with the enquiry report nor can he go beyond the scope and ambit of the materials which were produced before the enquiry officer. 9. In the present case, it appears that the disciplinary authority had examined some people though he was not supposed to hold a fresh enquiry. At best, he could have directed holding of a fresh enquiry if he was not satisfied with the enquiry report or if there was something else, it was open to him to remand the matter back to the inquiry officer or to appoint another inquiry officer, but in no case it was within his Jurisdiction to hold an enquiry himself and examine the witnesses by himself. " a plain reading of the said observation shows that it is open to the disciplinary authority to disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer, and for that it is not necessary that any opportunity is to be given. But he should record reason. " a plain reading of the said observation shows that it is open to the disciplinary authority to disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer, and for that it is not necessary that any opportunity is to be given. But he should record reason. ( 5 ) IN the present case, the disciplinary authority has not disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer or the report of the enquiry. On the other hand, he has proposed punishment other than punishment proposed by the enquiry officer. ( 6 ) SO far as the question of punishment is concerned. It is for the disciplinary authority to propose the punishment. The proposal of punishment by the enquiry officer is suggestive. It is not binding on the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer is not supposed to propose though he may suggest punishment. If any punishment is suggested by the enquiry officer, the same is suggestive and as such is not binding on the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority who has to propose the punishment after considering the report of the enquiry officer and the gravity of the charges proved. It is the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority on the basis whereof the punishment is inflicted. Therefore, it is not the satisfaction of the enquiry officer who has suggested punishment on the basis of which the punishment is to be inflicted by the disciplinary authority. ( 7 ) IN the present case, the disciplinary authority had recorded his reason as to the extent that the petitioner had identified a wrong person and had sanctioned the loan on the basis of wrong document relating to security. He has also recorded a finding after having considered the materials on record, that the Justified punishment would be the punishment of dismissal and. therefore, he had proposed the punishment of dismissal and had given opportunity to the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal should not be inflicted on him. The punishment having been inflicted after considering the material and after giving opportunity to the petitioner. this Court cannot enter into the question of merit of the finding-either of the enquiry officer or with the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority with regard to quantum of punishment. The punishment having been inflicted after considering the material and after giving opportunity to the petitioner. this Court cannot enter into the question of merit of the finding-either of the enquiry officer or with the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority with regard to quantum of punishment. This Court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shown that the punishment is arbitrarily imposed or is outside the competence of the disciplinary authority or is apparently disproportionate or is impermissible in law. In the present case, it does not show that the punishment imposed was arbitrary or apparently disproportionate with the guilt of charges proved or incompetent or impermissible is law. Even in the enquiry report, the enquiry officer has proposed the punishment of stoppage of increment on the petitioner for three years but the delinquent may be kept under surveillance and all loan sanctioned by him should be released only after scrutinising each document. This very clause indicates that it is very difficult to retain a person on whom another person is to be engaged to keep a surveillance and thus this very clause indicate that the employee cannot repose any trust and confidence on the petitioner because he has to be supervised and watched by someone else. This shows absence of trust and confidence by the employer. When an employer loses his confidence on a person, no Court can compel such an employer to retain such an employee to the peril of its own business. The Court is not interested in the business of the employer. Therefore, even if a view is taken, the same can be different from the view that might be taken by the employer. It is the employer who is interested in its own business. He has different way of looking with which this Court cannot interfere. In such circumstances. If the employer found that it cannot retain a person because it has lost its confidence on him, the Court cannot compel him to retain such a person. The charges were that he had sanctioned loan to a wrong person on the basis of wrong document which is very grave in nature and it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges proved. ( 8 ) MR. Uma Kant had also relied on a decision in the case of Ex. The charges were that he had sanctioned loan to a wrong person on the basis of wrong document which is very grave in nature and it cannot be said that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges proved. ( 8 ) MR. Uma Kant had also relied on a decision in the case of Ex. Naik Sardar Singh u. Union of india and others, AIR 1992 SC 417 . In support of his contention of disproportionate punishment. ( 9 ) IN the said case. It was held that the punishment is dependent on the nature and degree of offence. In this case the Army Jawan found to have extra 7 bottles of rum within an area under prohibition while going to his home town having valid permit to carry 5 bottles. The extra bottles were also purchased from Army canteen on chit given by higher Army authority. In such circumstances, it was found that the punishment of three months R. I. and dismissal from service was disproportionate. It was not the case of loss of confidence. On the other hand. It was the case where by reason of passing through an area under prohibition he was found to have violated some rule. When he had permit to carry five bottles, the carriage of extra two bottles purchased from Army Canteen in a prohibited zone is not such an offence which could be equated with that of the present case. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case cannot be attracted in the present case. ( 10 ) FOR all these reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost.