S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 14th October, 1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2495/97 whereby and whereunder the original application filed by the petitioner herein questioning the order of the disciplinary authority dated 8. 5. 97 and that of the appellate authority dated 12. 8. 97; was dismissed. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a Constable in the Delhi Police. On 10. 7. 1996 while he was posted as a Constable in the 6th Bn. Delhi Armed Police he went to CGHS dispensary for medical check up as allegedly he was not feeling well. The doctor advised him rest for two days However on his return he was asked to report to 3rd Bn. On the same day, according to the petitioner he was beaten up by Head Constable Suresh Kumar and was examined in Hindu Rao Hospital. A discipline proceedings was initiated against him wherein a charge sheet was served upon the petitione which is to the following terms: - "charge i, Balbir Singh, Inspector -6th Bn. DAP, Delhi (Enquiry Officer) charge you, Const. Indereet Singh No. 7322/dap that you were deputed to perform duty in 3rd Bn. DAP and made a departure vide DD No. 43 on 10. 7. 96. Despite complying the orders, you went to BHM s office and said that he has not done good four you. You also threatened the BHM/6th Bn. DAP for dire consequences in the presence of Const. Vijay Pal No. 7456/dap and S. I. Raghu Nath. A report to this effect was lodged vide DD No. 44 dated 10. 7. 96 6th Bn. DAP. Again you went to the residence of HC Suresh Kumar No. 7179/dap, BHM/6th Bn. DAP at Qr. No. 33-0, Police Colony Model Town-II and threaten him to kill his family members. A report to this effect was also lodged vide DD No. 50 dt. 10. 7. 96, 6th Bn. DAP. Thereafter, at 5. 55 PM, you instead of reporting in 3rd Bn. DAP, went to Hindu Rao Hospital and get yourself medically examined after fabricating a false story that you were beaten up by HC Suresh Kumar No. 7179/dap, BHM and also gave written complaint to SI Suresh Kumar of PS model Town stating therein that after your departure to 3rd Bn. 55 PM, you instead of reporting in 3rd Bn. DAP, went to Hindu Rao Hospital and get yourself medically examined after fabricating a false story that you were beaten up by HC Suresh Kumar No. 7179/dap, BHM and also gave written complaint to SI Suresh Kumar of PS model Town stating therein that after your departure to 3rd Bn. You went to your barrack to collect your belongings, where HC Suresh Kumar, BHM/6th Bn. Came and gave you severe beatings. The above act on your part amounts to grave misconduct, indiscipline, remissness, negligence and dereliction of duty, you acted yourself in a manner of unbecoming of a police officer. This renders you liable for departmental action in accordance with rules for punishment as envisaged under section 21 of Delhi Police Act, 1978. " ( 2 ) IN the said disciplinary proceedings the enquiry officer found that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved in terms of his report dated 15. 1. 1997 holding (1) He disobeyed Head Constable Suresh Kumar. (2) He threatened Head Constable Suresh Kumar. (3) The MLC with regard to injuries suffered by him is false and incorrect. The disciplinary authority forwarded a copy of the said enquiry report to him. A show cause notice was also issued where too he had filed his representation. By reason of the impugned order dated 8. 5. 1997 the disciplinary authority upon considering the entire material on record and in particular the report of the enquiry officer as well as the representation of the petitioner opined:- "in the light of above discussion and record on DE file I am of the considered view that the charge against the defaulter const. Inderjeet Singh, 7322/ DAP has been fully proved during the course of De proceedings. The charges against him are very grave which make him unworthy of serving in the force. I have also heard him in the O. R. On 2. 5. 97. He had nothing to say in his defence during personal appearance. Such type of arrogant and indiscipline person is completely unfit to be retained in police force and therefore his retention in the department is highly detrimental to maintain the morale discipline and decorum amongst the other members of the force. I, hereby dismiss the defaulter const. Inderjeet Singh. 7322/dap from the service with Immediate effect. His suspension period from 12. 7. 96 to 28. I, hereby dismiss the defaulter const. Inderjeet Singh. 7322/dap from the service with Immediate effect. His suspension period from 12. 7. 96 to 28. 11. 96 is treated as not spent on duty. " ( 3 ) AN appeal was preferred against the said order by the petitioner and by reason of order dated 12. 8. 1997 the appellate authority dealt with the pleas raised therein and dismissed the appeal holding:- "i have gone through the appeal and relevant records and also heard the appellant in person. The pleas put forth by the appellant in his appeal have no force. The 6th PW. MHCR/6th Bn. Was not examined by the S. O. Because the record i. e. DD No. 43 dated 10. 7. 96 regarding departure of the appellant in III Bn. DAP was already produced and marked as Exb. PW 1 during the statement of HC Suresh Kumar (PW-1 ). The allegation levelled against the appellant during DG proceedings was based on the evidence cited during DG. PW-2 and 3 who were the eye witnesses has categorically and clearly stated about the threatening words used by the appellant against BHM. The PW-6 SI Suresh Kumar of PS Model Town, Delhi in his statement has clearly stated that the nature of injury was simple caused by blunt object, therefore, no action was taken by local police. However, the said complaint submitted by the appellant against BHM/ 6th Bn. Dap was sent to DCP/5th Bn. DAP for talking necessary action being a departmental case. The S. O. As well as the disciplinary authority have taken into account all the important facts into consideration while preparing the findings and passing punishment order respectively. " ( 4 ) BEFORE the learned tribunal the petitioner inter alia raised a contention that there had been no sufficient evidence on record to bring home the said charges against him. The learned tribunal noticed:- "in the grounds taken by applicant, he has denied having threatened H. C. Suresh (P. W. 1) with dire consequences, but there is sufficient evidence on record to bring home this charge against applicant. It is therefore not a case where there is no evidence against applicant, and it is beyond the scope of the Tribunal to reappreciate the evidence. It is therefore not a case where there is no evidence against applicant, and it is beyond the scope of the Tribunal to reappreciate the evidence. " ( 5 ) IT was held that the petitioner has not been able to show any infirmity in the procedure as regards conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and principal of natural justice adhered to. On the basis of the said findings the original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Mr. Sanjiv Khanna the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who raised a short question in support of this writ petition to Rule 8 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules the learned counsel would submit that before an order of dismissal or removal from service is passed the disciplinary authority must arrive at a finding that the delinquent official is guilty of grave misconduct rendering him unfit for police service. The learned counsel would take us through the alleged utterances of the petitioner which were the subject matter of charge and submitted that such utterances might have been made in view of the situation obtaining therein. According to the learned counsel such an out burst of emotion does not amount to grave misconduct warranting the punishment of dismissal from service. In support of thesaid contention strong reliance has been placed upon Sukhbir Singh Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Others 1984 (2) SLR 149 . The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand would support the judgment of the tribunal. Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act specifies several punishments which authorities specified therein may award. Rule 8 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules provides for inflicting penalties which is in the following terms:- "8. Principles for Inflicting penalties -. (a) Dismissal/removal,- The punishment of dismissal or removal from service shall be awarded for the act of grave misconduct rendering him unfit for police service. (b) Reduction- No officer shall be reduced to a rank lower than that in which he was initially appointed. Withholding of increment.- (1) The increment of a police officer may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment is Withheld, and whether the withholding shall have the effect of postponing future increments. (b) Reduction- No officer shall be reduced to a rank lower than that in which he was initially appointed. Withholding of increment.- (1) The increment of a police officer may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment is Withheld, and whether the withholding shall have the effect of postponing future increments. (2) The withholding of increments shall be entered in the order book in the case of constables and head-Constables and in the case of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors published in the Police Gazette. When an efficiency bar is placed at any stage or stages in a time scale it shall be passed only on the authority of a specific order by an officer competent to withhold an increment in the time scale concerned. (d) Forfeiture of approved service -Approved service may be forfeited permanently or temporarily for a specified period as under:- (i) For purposes of promotion or seniority (Permanent only ). (ii) Entailing reduction in pay or deferment of an increment or increments (permanently or temporarily ). (e) Fine not exceeding one month s pay.- when any Police Officer of a subordinate rank has been found negligent in the discharge of his duties resulting in pecuniary loss to the government, the punishment of the fine not exceeding one month s pay may be imposed on him after a regular departmental enquiry. (f) Censure.- The punishment of censure shall be supported by a formal order in the order book and shall not be awarded unless the officer concerned has been given an opportunity to explain his conduct in the manner prescribed in Rule 6 (ii) above. (g) Punishment drill- (1) Punishment drill shall consist of drill with a musket of rifle and rolled great coat for not more than six or less than four hours in any one day, with an interval of at least 30 minutes between each hour, Only such days shall be counted towards the completion of an award of punishment drill on which the drill is actually carried out. (2) The officer awarding the punishment drill may direct that constable so punished shall not leave the place of his posting or Police Lines, except on duty during the days on which such punishment is to be earned out. (2) The officer awarding the punishment drill may direct that constable so punished shall not leave the place of his posting or Police Lines, except on duty during the days on which such punishment is to be earned out. " ( 6 ) THE question as to whether the punishment imposed upon a delinquent official is proportionate to the charges of misconduct leveled against him has been considered by the Apex Court recently in Om Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India 2001 (2) SCC 386 . Rao, J. speaking for the Bench has REFERRED TO a large number of decisions therein holding that the judicial review may be held applicable by way of primary review or secondary review. Discussing as to what would the doctrine of proportionality it was observed in para 28:- "by "proportionality", we mean the question whether, while regulating exercise of fundamental rights, the appropriate or least-restrictive choice of measures has been made by the legislature or the administrator so as to achieve the object of the legislation or the purpose of the administrative order, as the case may be. Under the principle, the Court will see that the legislature and the administrative authority "maintain a proper balance between the adverse effects which the legislation or the administrative order may have on the rights, liberties or interests of persons keeping in mind the purpose which they were intended to serve". The legislature and the administrative authority are, however, given an area of discretion or a range of choices but as to whether the choice made infringes the rights excessively or not is for the Court. That is what is meant by proportionality. " ( 7 ) DEALING with the said question vis-a-vis the legislation in UK and India as also USA it was held that where administrative action attracts Article 14 of the Constitution of India as being wholly arbitrary and discriminatory same can be struck down on the said basis but as regards the doctrine of proportionality vis-a-vis the punishment in service the legal principles of unreasonableness is required to be complied. Observing para 71:- "thus, from the above principles and decided cases, it must be held that where an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is questions "arbitrary" under Article 14, the Court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority. Observing para 71:- "thus, from the above principles and decided cases, it must be held that where an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is questions "arbitrary" under Article 14, the Court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority. The Court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing court because no issue of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under article 14 applies in such a context. The Court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the courts, and such extreme or rare cases can the court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment. " ( 8 ) THE contention raised by Mr. Khanna must, therefore, be judged in the light of the aforementioned authorities of the Apex Court. The petitioner as noticed herein before has not only been charged of threatening a Head Constable with dire consequences not once but twice but also had lodged a false complaint against him to the effect that he had been beaten up by the aforementioned Head Constable Suresh Kumar. The enquiry officer has analysed the evidence of the witnesses in great detail and in coming to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner herein have been fully proved. As regard the third charge the enquiry office said : - "the beating of the delinquent by HC Suresh Kumar is concocted, fabricated and false one as his conduct has certainly lent credence to cement this view. Firstly, he was feigning illness before RI and took recourse to CGHS Dispensary N. P. C. . Then he failed to show any concrete evidence regarding medical treatment from there. Secondly the simple injuries sustained through beating by the delinquent as shown in MLC caused by blunt object as per the doctor of H. R. Hospital are superficial in nature. In all probabilities, these may be self inflicted as is evident from the affected part of the body i. e. Abdominal wall. Secondly the simple injuries sustained through beating by the delinquent as shown in MLC caused by blunt object as per the doctor of H. R. Hospital are superficial in nature. In all probabilities, these may be self inflicted as is evident from the affected part of the body i. e. Abdominal wall. Thirdly, as so many lower subordinates are residing in the barracks, so the beatings in such a place, where a flussy of activity is there particularly in the day time, is very hard to digest in all possibilities. Neither he informed the RI about the beating then and there, nor produced any witness in support of his contention which also made this aspect highly suspicious. The needles of suspicion points to the delinquent. " ( 9 ) SUBMISSION of Mr. Khanna is that a bare perusal of the aforementioned finding would lead to the conclusion that the enquiry officer has taken recourse to surmises in as much as he had held in all probabilities the injuries may be self inflicted ones. The findings of the enquiry officer in our opinion must be read as a whole. As noticed herein before it is held that the petitioner had been framing illness before respondent No. 1, and failed to show any concrete evidence regarding medical treatment. He has not been able to prove that the Head Constable had inflicted those injuries. It was found that the injuries were superficial in nature and only in that situation, he made the aforementioned observations. Even if such observations are ignored, the case of the petitioner would not improve. As regards the submission of Mr. Khanna to the effect that the disciplinary authority did not apply his mind on the quantum of sentence keeping in view the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rules which is imperative in nature; suffice it to point out that a positive finding has been arrived at by the enquiry officer to the effect that the charges against the petitioner are very grave and some made him unworthy of serving in the force. We as noticed supra have also found that the appellate authority had also arrived at a similar finding. In Sukhvir Singh supra where upon Mr. Khanna placed heavy reliance, we record our disagreement to the observations made therein that temporary mis appropriation may not always amount to grave misconduct. We as noticed supra have also found that the appellate authority had also arrived at a similar finding. In Sukhvir Singh supra where upon Mr. Khanna placed heavy reliance, we record our disagreement to the observations made therein that temporary mis appropriation may not always amount to grave misconduct. Further more, the said question had not been raised before the tribunal. For the reasons aforementioned we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.