P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 2 ) THE writ petition is filed for a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Award made in I. D. No. 314/93, dated 26-5-1994, on the file of the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 11-2-1990, and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages and pass such other order or orders. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: it is stated by the writ petitioner that he was a confirmed employee of the second respondent company and working as electro Plater having been appointed on 14-4-1987 and he was discharging his duties to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of his superiors and it is also stated that the second respondent had issued Service Certificate on 15-8-1987 appreciating his meritorious service. It is also further stated that some of the Officers, who bore grudge, levelled false charges against the petitioner and got four charge memos issued from 1-12-1988 till 24-8-1989 and there was departmental enquiry, which was in violation of principles of natural justice and in the departmental enquiry, ultimately he was found guilty. It was also stated that even though the findings of the enquiry Officer were in his favour, the second respondent had passed an order dated 11-2-1990 dismissing the petitioner from service and aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner had raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the A. P. Industrial disputes Amendment Act and the same was numbered as I. D. No. 271/90 of l. C. No. l, Hyderabad, and renumbered as i. D. No. 314/93 on the file of the first respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner had taken a defence that the proceedings at all stages are in violation of principles of natural justice, and the first respondent dismissed the said I. D. It is further stated that the petitioner is having wife and two children and an old age mother, who is sick. ( 4 ) MR. It is also stated that the petitioner had taken a defence that the proceedings at all stages are in violation of principles of natural justice, and the first respondent dismissed the said I. D. It is further stated that the petitioner is having wife and two children and an old age mother, who is sick. ( 4 ) MR. J. Kanakaiah, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had contended that the award made by the first respondent confirming the impugned order of the second respondent dismissing the petitioner from service is illegal, arbitrary and all the charges are overlapping in nature and even otherwise, they are trivial and does not attract the major penalty dismissing from service. The learned counsel further contended that at any rate, the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged and hence, it is in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) SRI K. Srinivasa Murthy, on the contrary had drawn my attention to the charges which had been framed and also the nature of the conduct of the writ petitioner and the learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraph Nos. 10 to 17 of the impugned award, where detailed reasons had been recorded and had submitted that inasmuch as the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, the punishment from the facts and circumstances cannot be said to be unjustified. ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. The charges against the petitioner arising out of the four enquiries are as follows: charge No. 1: Ex. M-4 dt. 1-12-88: ( 7 ) THE petitioner was entrusted with gold plating of certain article on 11-8-88. He did not complete it by 30-11-88. Instead of keeping the job card, the original of Ex. M. 3, at the place of work, he carried it with him. (II) On 30-11-88, at about 3. 30 p. m. he approached Sri V. Holla, the Manager of his section with a letter addressed to the Dy. General Manager (Design, hyme) and for forwarding the same to the latter. When Mr. Holla signed on it, the petitioner took it back in a forceable and rude manner. Charge No. 2: Ex. M-11. dt. 18-3-89: ( 8 ) THE petitioner sent Ex. General Manager (Design, hyme) and for forwarding the same to the latter. When Mr. Holla signed on it, the petitioner took it back in a forceable and rude manner. Charge No. 2: Ex. M-11. dt. 18-3-89: ( 8 ) THE petitioner sent Ex. M. 10 letter dated 11-1-1989 to the Chairman, HAL bangalore complaining that Sri Natarajan, dy. General Manager (HYME) is an unqualified and incompetent person. Charge No. 3: Ex. M-23. dt. 28-5-89: ( 9 ) ON 26-5-89 around 9. 30 a. m. Sri P. Natarajan, Dy. General Manager (HYME) found the petitioner loitering outside the ground floor clean room. Sri Natarajan, persuaded him to go to his place of work in the first floor but the petitioner refused to go away or work. Sri Natarajan prepared Ex. M-22 note and he himself served Ex. M-23 charge-sheet upon the petitioner. Charge No. 4: Ex. M-38. dt. 24-8-89: (I) Neglecting the work of gold plating. (II) Loitering in the department without sitting in his place of work (III) Insubordination towards his superior officers. (IV) Losing the jobs (article on which gold plating has to be done) as well as the job cards. (V) Keeping the Nitric Acid open with mala fide intention to endanger the establishment. Four Enquiry Officers had conducted the enquires and submitted reports finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. The enquiry reports are Ex. M-9, Ex. M-21, Ex. M-32 and ex. M-46 and on receiving the enquiry reports, the Deputy General Manager (P and a) gave Ex. M-47 notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service as he accepted the reports of the enquiry Officer and inasmuch as the proved misconduct is of serious nature. The petitioner gave Ex. M-48 reply and ultimately, when the second respondent made an order dated 11-2-1990, the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the first respondent in I. D. No. 314/93 wherein the relief was negatived and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed. In the impugned award, the first respondent had observed as follows:"i believe that there are some factions in this defence establishment perhaps, some officers who want to displace mr. Natarajan might have instigated the petitioner. He fell a prey to their designs and ultimately the petitioner became a victim. In the impugned award, the first respondent had observed as follows:"i believe that there are some factions in this defence establishment perhaps, some officers who want to displace mr. Natarajan might have instigated the petitioner. He fell a prey to their designs and ultimately the petitioner became a victim. The petitioner has invited the situation upon himself by not doing his work regularly and keeping his work pending. " ( 10 ) THE first respondent after discussing exs. M-1 to M-49 in detail at paragraph nos. 10 to 15 ultimately at paragraph No. 16 had observed "the petitioner misconducted himself by not working, by sending petitions on superior officers and by keeping the nitric acid open. It all arose due to his personal quarrel with another employee by name Swamy Naidu. The petitioner also appears to have been instigated by disgruntled scientists. The petitioner might have become the victim of internal politics among the scientists and their supporters in the subordinate cadre. But the petitioner is a qualified man aged more than 30 years and he should not have misconducted himself in this manner. He does not deserve to continue in a defence establishment. " Most probably, these are the reasons, which are raised before the first respondent while confirming the order of the second respondent. Regulation 28 of the Standing orders of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, hyderabad Division, dealing with punishment for misconduct reads as follows:"a workman guilty of misconduct may be- (a) (i) warned or censured; (ii) fined (subject to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as amended from time to time); (iii) subject to stoppage of increments, including stoppage at an efficiency bar, with or without cumulative effect; (iv) Demoted to a Junior category or lower grade; (v) Reversion/reduction to the minimum of the scale of pay; (vi) Suspension, without pay for a period not exceeding 4 days at a time; (vii) Dismissal without notice or any compensation in lieu of notice. (b) (i) No workman shall be punished till a written Memorandum of charges, setting-forth the circumstances appearing against him and the nature of the misconduct involved, and requiring his explanation has been issued to him and he has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation in writing. (b) (i) No workman shall be punished till a written Memorandum of charges, setting-forth the circumstances appearing against him and the nature of the misconduct involved, and requiring his explanation has been issued to him and he has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation in writing. (ii) The Management or an officer of the Company authorised in this behalf may institute an enquiry against a workman before imposing on him any of the punishments listed in above. (iii) An order of suspension shall be in writing and may take effect immediately on delivery to the workman. Such order shall set out in detail the alleged misconduct and the workman shall be given an opportunity of explaining the circumstances alleged against him. If on the enquiry, the order is confirmed, the workman shall be deemed to have been absent from duty for the period of suspension and shall not be entitled to any remuneration for such period. However, the workman concerned will be paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the Standing order No. 27. Further if the order is rescinded the workman shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the same wages as he would have received if he had not been suspended, after deducting the subsistence allowance, if any, paid to him for such period. iv) No order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity to explain the misconduct alleged against him. The approval of the Manager of the establishment or where there is no Manager, the employer is required in every case of dismissal when circumstances appear to warrant it, the manager or the employer may institute independent enquiries before dealing with charges against workman, provided that in case of a workman to whom clause (2) of Article 311 of the constitution of India apply, the provisions of that article shall be complied with. (v) In awarding punishment under this Standing Order, the management shall take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the workman and any other extenuating circumstances that may exist. A copy of the order passed by the manager shall be supplied to the workman concerned. (v) In awarding punishment under this Standing Order, the management shall take into account the gravity of misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the workman and any other extenuating circumstances that may exist. A copy of the order passed by the manager shall be supplied to the workman concerned. (c) Recovery from pay, full or part of pecuniary loss caused to the company by negligence or breach of order. "the charges had already been mentioned above. Even as per the findings recorded by he first respondent all is not well in the establishment and hence, unfortunately, the petitioner fell a prey to the said internal politics. As can be seen from the certified standing Orders and also in view of the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the first respondent while exercising the powers could have imposed any other penalty instead of imposing the exterme penalty of dismissal. Hence, I am of the considered view that the first respondent had not exercised the discretion properly while imposing the exterme penalty in the light of the charges levelled against the petitioner and the proved misconduct since the counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged only this point of proportionality of punishment. In the light of the observations made above, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for the purpose of considering the case afresh as to imposing any of the minor penalties specified under the Standing Orders of the second respondent. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.