JUDGMENT I.P. Vasishth & V.K. Vishnoi, J. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal 9rder dated 7.7.1976 (Annexure-1) and its affirmative order dated 25th. January, 1979 (Annexure-2) passed by the Appellate Authority (Departmental) the petitioner approached our predecessor Tribunal pleading inter-alia' that he was departmentally proceeded on vague and concocted charges that the enquiry was conducted in a haphazard and unilateral manner, that it was concluded without affording him proper opportunity of defence and that the Disciplinary Authority erred in affirming the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry officer without hearing, him. Similarly, lack of application of mind was also attributed to the Appellate Authority. 2. The gist of the matter as borne out from the pleadings was that at the relevant time in 1976-77 the petitioner was posted as Revenue Patwari Halqua Patti• Martha Tehsil Deo Prayag in District Tehri. He was insinuated (charge sheet Annexure-13) by the Department for having intruded into the house of one Pratap Singh Peon at village Dang Patti Barakat in latter's absence and stayed there for the night on 13th June, 1977, knowing well that peon's wife was the sole occupant at the• moment. He was also accused of having stolen Rs. 300/- from that house. The other allegation against him was that during the discharge of his duties as a revenue Patwari, he recovered an amount of Rs. 7,042.18 from the various defaulters at different 'stages is from 12.1.76 to 24.5;76, but made only irregular and intermittent deposits with the result that at the time of final accounting on 24.5.1976, he was found in arrears the tune of Rs. 15.63 which he deposited as late as on 2.4.1977, thus revealing a case of temporary embezzlement. 3. By way of his reply (Annexure-14) the petitioner refuted all the charges and explained that since his beat covered distant villages in the hilly area, therefore, on 13th, June, 1977 during one of his revenue peon Pratap Singh to provide him some shelter for the night as it has grown quite late and that it was at the latter's indulgence that he slept at the house of Pratap Singh without knowing who were the other occupants thereof. He categorically denied having committed any theft or mis-behaviour with any body. 4. He categorically denied having committed any theft or mis-behaviour with any body. 4. With regard to the second charge, according to petitioner since the recoveries were effected at different stages from different defaulters and a number of those items represented meager amounts, therefore, he kept on depositing them in lump sum as and when he returned to his Head Quarter, that there was no such arrangement under which he could deposit each and every item separately and on the very day of recovery, so much so that quite often he made certain over deposits which were usually adjusted at the time of final accounting. All the same he admitted that when the final accounts were settled the Department reported a nominal shortage of Rs. 15/- and an odd figure of 63 P which he deposited without any hassle. In short, his defence was one of bona fides without any dishonest or otherwise questionable intent. 5. Closing his version, the petitioner alleged mala fides on the part of the Enquiry Officer who was allegedly upset because the petitioner had reported a case of Government's land grabbing against the father of his peon. 6. The Department was, however, not amused with the petitioner's explanation and so he was taken to a full dress enquiry by Pargana Adhikari Tehri Pratap Nagar on authorization by the Appointing Authority Le. District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal. Concluding with his proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 22.4.1978 (Annexure-15) holding 'inter-alia' that the petitioner was guilty on the first charge of having stayed at the house of Pratap Singh peon in latter's absence and obviously without his permission. The petitioner was of course exonerated of the charge of having committed any theft or removing anything from there on the second counts, he was held guilty of temporary misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 15:63 (Rupees Fifteen and paise sixty three) only which he had recovered from the revenue defaulters. The Enquiry Officer suggested a punishment of stoppage of petitioner's two annual increments with cumulative effect. 7. The Appointing Authority on examining the report of the Enquiry Officer sent a copy thereof to the petitioner and also informed him that keeping in view the gravity of the charges proved against him, proposed to give him the punishment of removal from service. 7. The Appointing Authority on examining the report of the Enquiry Officer sent a copy thereof to the petitioner and also informed him that keeping in view the gravity of the charges proved against him, proposed to give him the punishment of removal from service. Notice contained in Annexure-16 dated 3.5.1978 was the issued in this context and as the petitioner's reply thereto was not found satisfactory, the impugned order of punishment dated 7.7.1971 contained in Annexure-1 was passed. As indicate here-in-before, it was affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 25.1.1979 vide Annexure-2 . Hence the petition. 8. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record and hearing the parties. We are not inclined to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer on going through the departmental proceedings as required by law and the principles of natural justice. There is no gain saying that this Tribunal is not expected to sit in judgment on such findings as an Appellate Forum, as would be evident from the ratio of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, 1996 S.C. Cases (Labour & Services) 304. 9. To be precise the Enquiry Officer had fully apprised the petitioner in advance about the propose evidence to be produced by the Department which he then lad in his presence and he was accorded due opportunity to rebut it both by way of cross-examination as well as by leading his own defence. After closer of the evidence the petitioner was heard by the Enquiry Officer, so much 'so that he was granted an audience both by the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority and his written reply, too, was entertained wherein he had questioned the veracity of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 10. By no stretch of logic it could be called a case of no evidence, particularly in the light of petitioner's own admission of having spent the night at the house of Peon Pratap Singh and the late deposit of the recoveries effected by him during the discharge of his duty. 10. By no stretch of logic it could be called a case of no evidence, particularly in the light of petitioner's own admission of having spent the night at the house of Peon Pratap Singh and the late deposit of the recoveries effected by him during the discharge of his duty. In a manner of speaking, there was no dispute on the point of fact and the variance was limited to the manse a alone which version should have been accepted by the Enquiry officer the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority, could be a matter of difference of opinion on appraisal and appreciation, but by no logic a good ground for rejection as something like perverse. 11. Petitioner's grouse that the Enquiry Officer was biased against him or that he was annoyed, because, he (petitioner) had lodged a report of unauthorized occupation of Government land by the father of S.D.M.'s peon Gabar Singh thoroughly misconceived, because from petitioner's own documents contained in Annexures 3 and 4, it is abundantly clear that the S.D.M. had accepted his report and taken appropriate action against Gabar Singh, the father of his (S.D.M.) peon. Had he been annoyed with the petitioner for reporting against Gabar Singh, he would not have normally proceeded to punish Gabar Singh. The defence being frivolous was thus rightly rejected the Enquiry Officer. 12. Under these circumstances, to the extent of proving the charges against the petitioner, we find no irregularity, impropriety or illegality in the conclusion drawn by the Departmental Authorities to warrant any interference. 13. The point for consideration before this Tribunal, however, is the issue of punishment. The Tribunal is fully conscious of the age old practice, which has since matured, more or less, into a principle of law that normally the Tribunals do not impose their own view on the question of punishment, but it is also an accepted norm that when the punishment is apparently disproportionate to the charges or repulsive to the judicial conscience, the Tribunal will not shirk its responsibility to do substantial justice. It may further remit the case back to the Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration on that point or in some befitting situation modify the punishment on its own. It may further remit the case back to the Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration on that point or in some befitting situation modify the punishment on its own. For the proposition we draw support from the ratio of Rama Kant Mishra vs. State of V.P. 1993 (1) SLR 135 = AIR 1982 SC 1552, Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others 1983 (1) SLR 626 and Union of India Vs. Girl Raj Sharma 1995 S.C. Cases (Labour & Services), 290. 14. A back reference to the imputations against the petitioner and findings of the Enquiry Officer as contained in Annexures-13 and 15 would show that the first insinuation was of his having spent the night at the house of peon Pratap Singh when latter's wife was all alone and committing a theft of Rs. 300/ - from there. Interestingly enough, there was not even an iota of evidence before the Enquiry Officer to infer the absence of any other family member in that house besides Pratap Singh's wife of course, actually even the Enquiry Report Annexure-15 does not indicate any such thing. To put it straight, she was Dot alone in that house. The second aspect of the issue is that the charge was sought to be made graver by the allegation of his having committed a theft of Rs. 300/- from the house of Pratap Singh. This accusation was found unsubstantiated by the Enquiry Officer himself and the finding was affirmed both by the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority. Significantly enough this incident was also reported to the Police and a case was formerly got registered against him for the offence u/ s. 380 and 457 I.P.C. but the investigation revealed the charge to be baseless. 15. Petitioner's mis-demeanour of spending the night at the house of Pratap Singh requires to be appraised against the back drop of the nature and the area of his duty. He was a Revenue Patwari entrusted with the job of effecting recoveries from the defaulters. He was posted in a hill area comprising of small villages located at distant places. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the hill areas, even a little cluster of houses is taken as a village and admittedly Pratap Singh's village was no exception. Such villages do not have any facility of Dharamshala or Patwarkhana. He was posted in a hill area comprising of small villages located at distant places. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the hill areas, even a little cluster of houses is taken as a village and admittedly Pratap Singh's village was no exception. Such villages do not have any facility of Dharamshala or Patwarkhana. So if after getting free from his duty in the late houses he chose to spend the night at the house of one of his own departmental peon. Heavens were not going to fall and it is no boby's case that he misbehaved with any occupant of that house, women folk included. Otherwise also it is common ground that the petitioner stayed in the ground floor room whereas the family of Pratap Singh was sleeping up stairs. 16. Similarly, the implication of second charge, despite of its having been proved, requires to be appraised in the light of the admitted proposition, apparent even from the Enquiry Officer's report Annexure-15 that these recoveries were usually made by the petitioner from different defaulters belonging to different villages in small bits, which he would deposit in lump sum on his return to the Head Quarter. On a few occasions even an higher amount then the one recovered, was deposited by him. So it was only at the time of settlement of the final accounts that he was found in arrears and that too, of such .a nominal figure of Rs. 15.63 p only, which he deposited on the Department's instructions. It is a different matter that the account were settled almost 10 months after the last deposit rather than one year as indicated by the Disciplinary Authority. So in our considered opinion it was more or less a case of technical misappropriation rather than the aggravated one betraying any questionable motive. 17. It may not be out of context to mention here that this dispute pertains to the year 1976-77. After some preliminary enquiries the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29th June, 1977 vide order contained in Annexure-7. It is common ground that in the normal - course, the petitioner would have retired in the year 1995 as per his affidavit dated 27th March, 1979 submitted along with this petition to our predecessor Tribunal, he should be 1937 born. After some preliminary enquiries the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29th June, 1977 vide order contained in Annexure-7. It is common ground that in the normal - course, the petitioner would have retired in the year 1995 as per his affidavit dated 27th March, 1979 submitted along with this petition to our predecessor Tribunal, he should be 1937 born. During all this long period running almost 2,1/2 decades much water has flown down the Gangas, causing the petitioner, a low paid employee, considerable amount of torture and agonies of a slow-grinding and protracted judicial ordeal. We feel that it would be quite harsh on him if he were relegated to the Disciplinary Authority only on the issue of appropriate punishment. 18. It is besides the point that the Enquiry officer has recommended stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect as the appropriate punishment, whereas in his wisdom the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to dismiss the petitioner. Of course the latter had every power to over rule the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer, but all the same it was expected of him to record the reasons for disagreement, a course which was not adopted by him. 19. Be that as it may, we think that in the totality of the circumstances, the call of justice requires our intervention• in the context of punishment. Accordingly, on setting aside the punitive aspect of the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure-2) we award a punishment of the loss of two annual increments with cumulative effect to the petitioner obviously he would be re-instated with all the consequential service benefits barring, of course, back wages which he would have to lose in the light of Summit Court observations in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Bhagyo Mal & others S.C. Service Rulings 1950-1994 (Volume 9) page 231 = 1993 (8) SLR 189. 20. Resultantly, the petition •is partly allowed as indicated here-in-before.