JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Collectorate, Dungarpur, was placed under suspension during departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "the Rules"). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The chargesheet dated 27th Dec., 1985 was served but the same was withdrawn by order dated 1st Sept., 1986 in compliance of the Department of Personnel's letter dated 7th August, 1986 whereby a joint enquiry against Shri Shree Nath Sharma, District Supply Officer, Dungarpur and the petitioner was ordered. The memo dated 16th Feb., 1987 was served upon the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner as well as Shri Shree Nath Sharma are from page No. 89 of the paper book whereas charges levelled against the petitioner are from page No. 91 to 93 of the paper book. Briefly the charges against both the persons were that on 10th Oct., 1985 when Shri Shree Nath Sharma was holding the post of District Supply Officer and Himmat Singh Bhati was working as U.D.C. both by conspiracy interpolated in the record to give benefit to one private dealer. The other charges No. 2, 3 & 4 are also relating to conspiracy and with respect to the consequential effect of their action. The detail of all the charges are not very much relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. The enquiry was conducted and thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report, copy of which is placed on record as Annex. 17. The enquiry officer, after discussing the entire facts of the case and the documents placed on record and after considering statement of witnesses of the department and statement of witnesses produced in defence, found allegations No. 1, 2 & 3 fully proved whereas allegation No. 4 partially proved. The disciplinary authority in its order dated 30th August, 1993 agreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer but awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the petitioner whereas awarded punishment of stoppage of 25% of pension for seven years quo the delinquent Shri Shree Nath Sharma on the ground that Shri Shree Nath Sharma retired during the enquiry proceedings. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th August, 1993 (Annex. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30th August, 1993 (Annex. 19) passed against him by which the petitioner was punished. 4. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner proved his case of undue-influence and pressure of Shri Shree Nath Sharma over the petitioner which compelled the petitioner to strike out something from the record and, therefore, the petitioner is not guilty of any offence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards evidence of some of the witnesses wherein it is stated that the manipulation was made by Shri Shree Nath Sharma. learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly excessive and also challenges the order of the departmental enquiry on the ground of discrimination. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner should have been exonerated or in the alternative no different punishment could have been awarded to the petitioner from the punishment awarded to Shri Shree Nath Sharma. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that it was the petitioner, who initially manipulated the document in a manner so that benefit may go to the private person and, in fact, because of this manipulation only the wrong orders were passed. learned Counsel Shri P.C. Sharma vehemently submitted that both were involved in this conspiracy and therefore, the different punishment can be awarded looking to individual's role in the act. learned Counsel for the respondents also submitted that this Court is not a Court of appeal who can examine and reappreciate the entire evidence, which were available before the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. The scope is very limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for which learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Ashok Kumar Arora reported in 1997 SCC (L&S) 636 . learned Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the same judgment to justify the award of different punishment to the petitioner and Shri Shree Nath Sharma. v. Ashok Kumar Arora reported in 1997 SCC (L&S) 636 . learned Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the same judgment to justify the award of different punishment to the petitioner and Shri Shree Nath Sharma. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited and the Court cannot interfere unless it is found that domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observation of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity or findings are based on no evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment itself further held that interference by the Court is impermissible in the matter of award of punishment unless the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. The Hon'ble Apex Court also considered the earlier decision given in the cases of State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1976 (1) SLR 653 (SC) , State of A.P. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 : 1976(1) SLR 653(SC) and Nelson Motis v. Union of India reported in (1992) 4 SCC 1993 711 : 1992(5) SLR 394 (SC) . 6. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the scope of intereference by the High Court is very limited in a matter of domestic enquiry, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is required to be looked into find out whether this Court can interfere in the order passed against the petitioner vide order dated 30th August, 1993 (Annex. 19). 7. A bare perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner as well as Shri Shree Nath Sharma and finding recorded by the enquiry officer, which found approval from the disciplinary authority, it is clear that charge of conspiracy against the Shri Shree Nath Sharma, District Supply Officer as well as the petitioner Shri Himmat Singh Bhati were found to be proved. The defence which was taken by the petitioner, that Shri Shree Nath Sharma put pressure upon him for manipulating the record, has not been proved by the petitioner. The defence which was taken by the petitioner, that Shri Shree Nath Sharma put pressure upon him for manipulating the record, has not been proved by the petitioner. The finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and approved by the disciplinary authority read over by both the counsel and after considering each and every aspect of the matter, I am of the view that the enquiry officer very elaborately and critically examined the evidence produced by department as well as defence side. The documents were also considered and the circumstances in which all this happened were also taken note of by recording cogent reasons. The enquiry officer found that Shri Shree Nath Sharma and Himmat Singh Bhati both conspired to do the wrong. this Court neither need to enter into re-appreciation of the evidence nor there exists any reason to take a different view than taken in the domestic enquiry, even after going through the statements of the witnesses, which were read over by learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents. I am also of the view that the findings recorded are based on cogent evidence holding the petitioner and Shri Shree Nath Sharma as guilty. Therefore, this finding cannot be interfered by this Court on merits as well as having limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is too harsh and the discriminatory treatment has been given to the petitioner as petitioner as well as Shri Shree Nath Sharma both were found guilty of conspiracy but Shri Shree Nath Sharma was awarded a lesser punishment whereas extreme punishment was awarded to the petitioner. A bare perusal of the reasons given for the different punishment in the order dated 30th August, 1993 is only that since Shri Shree Nath Sharma after attaining the age of superannuation retired, therefore, he is being punished with stoppage of 25% of pension for seven years. It appears that on facts nothing was there to give different treatment for award of the punishment to both the persons except the retirement of Shri Shree Nath Sharma. It appears that on facts nothing was there to give different treatment for award of the punishment to both the persons except the retirement of Shri Shree Nath Sharma. When a joint enquiry was conducted and finding is recorded holding two persons guilty particularly in a matter of conspiracy where the role of two persons may be different but conspiracy is with an object to achieve one result then normally there must exist cogent reason for giving different punishment to two employees. This became a fortuitous circumstance for Shri Shree Nath Sharma that he retired during the pendency of the departmental enquiry proceedings and this became unfortunate for the petitioner that he had to serve for more period in the department. Above cannot be a ground to give two different punishment to petitioner and co-delinquent employee. Therefore, reason given for different punishment in the order of punishment cannot be sustained. 9. learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that there is a clear allegation against the petitioner that he is the person who manipulated the record, therefore, different punishment can be awarded and it cannot be said to be giving a different and discriminatory treatment to the petitioner. learned Counsel for the respondent drawn attention of this Court on various observations recorded in the enquiry report as well as in the finding recorded in the department enquiry proceedings by the disciplinary authority. learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was holding a responsible post and he was U.D.C. and petitioner's contention, that whatever wrong was committed by the petitioner, it was due to undue-influence and pressure of Shri Shree Nath Sharma, has not been found proved. The petitioner should have immediately complained to the higher authorities with respect to putting of undue-influence and pressure upon him by Shri Shree Nath Sharma and, therefore, his role was different and the petitioner did perform his duties with delinquency and therefore, he was liable for the harsh punishment, which was awarded to the petitioner. 10. The contention raised by learned Counsel for the respondent is absolutely unsustainable. It is relevant to mention here that it is an admitted case that Shri Shree Nath Sharma was the senior officer and the petitioner was the junior officer. It is proved that the petitioner manipulated the Government's record in collusion with his higher officer Shri Shree Nath Sharma. The contention raised by learned Counsel for the respondent is absolutely unsustainable. It is relevant to mention here that it is an admitted case that Shri Shree Nath Sharma was the senior officer and the petitioner was the junior officer. It is proved that the petitioner manipulated the Government's record in collusion with his higher officer Shri Shree Nath Sharma. If the superior officer himself puts his seal over the wrong committed by junior officer then this is more grave situation and more grave misconduct. Unfortunately, learned Counsel for the respondent only pointed out what is the duty of the petitioner ignoring the duty of the superior officer. The superior officers are required to perform their duties with more responsibility and they are the persons who can check the mistakes of the juniors, but becoming party in the conspiracy or permitting the junior person to commit wrong and puts his signature or seal over his subordinate's wrong, cannot be said to be a guilty of a lesser wrong, rather it is a more grave wrong. 11. learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment delivered in the case of Bharat Ram Meena v. State of Raj. and Ors. reported in RLR 2002 (2) 641 wherein Division Bench of this Court interfered in the matter of award of punishment on the ground of award of disproportionate punishment. 12. Not only this but even in the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent referred above, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court can interfere when the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. Here in this case, when the disciplinary authority himself finds that punishment for the offence will be sufficiently met by award of stoppage of 25% of pension for seven years in the matter of Shri Shree Nath Sharma, then the punishment awarded to the petitioner automatically becomes absolutely disproportionate to the guilt committed by the petitioner, therefore, it is a case where facts of the case warrants interference in the order of punishment awarded to the petitioner. It is further relevant to mention here that in the facts of the case, there appears no reason for giving two different punishment to two different persons, when there is an allegation of conspiracy, neither the enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority recorded any finding distinguishing the gravity of the offence committed by two co-delinquent employees. 13. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed to the extent of modifying the award of punishment to the petitioner in order dated 30th August, 1993 and order of removal from services against the petitioner is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for awarding proportionate penalty looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. The disciplinary authority is requested to pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.Petition partly allowed. *******