ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant was an employee of the west Bengal State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the "said Board" ). A disciplinary proceeding was drawn against the appellant on the following charges: articles of charge against Sri D. N. Munshi, sae (E) attached to Coochbehar (D)division. ( 2 ) WHEREAS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi, SAE (E), joined as Station superintendent, Mathabhanga Group Electric supply on November 9, 1995 and attended the meeting on November 10, 1995 at Jalpaiguri (Dist.) Circle which was presided by the member (Distribution ). It v/as decided in the meeting to liquidate all the pending applications and pending connections upto September 30, 1995 straight cases within December 31, 1995 and the complicated cases within March 31, 1996. Complicated cases means the cases where poles will be required or where system requires to be improved. And ( 3 ) WHEREAS it appears that, Sri D. N. Munshi, S. S Mathabhanga Group Electric supply submitted one report dated January 8, 1996 for PRT meeting, columns 7 and 8 of the said report are reproduced below: @@@731. htm@@@ ( 4 ) WHEREAS it appears from the report dated February 07, 1996 (for Jan. 1996) sent by Sri D. N. Munshi, S. S. to the D. E. Coochbehar (D) Divn. That: @@@73101. htm@@@ ( 5 ) THEREFORE, it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi, S. S. Mathabhanga Group Electric supply had submitted fabricated report on january 08, 1996 and the false report was submitted only to show that, there were no pending connections as on December 31, 1995, which was not a fact. Further it also appears from the Applications Service Connection register that no such cancellation was made by sri D. N. Munshi, S. S. as stated at column 7 of the report dated January 08, 1996. ( 6 ) THUS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi, had submitted a false report to his controlling officer to hide his non-performance and inefficient performance, and violated the order of superior authority. ( 6 ) THUS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi, had submitted a false report to his controlling officer to hide his non-performance and inefficient performance, and violated the order of superior authority. Such conduct of Sri munshi, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and in violation of regulations 38 and 50 of W. B. S. E. B. E. S. R. and tantamounts to an act of misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 61 (d), 61 (1) and 61 (p) of W. B. S. E. B. B. S. Regulations. Charge II ( 7 ) WHERE it appears from record that, Sri d. N. Munshi had joined at Mathabhanga Gr. E/s on November 9, 1995 and he remained absent from Head Quarter for 72 days against 141 working days within the period November 09, 1995 to April 30, 1996 (excluding Sundays and holidays), for which he did not submit any leave application initially. Further, it also appears from the record that on each occasion he left station to give witness to Diamond harbour Court (case related to his previous place of posting) and he overstayed without any intimation/permission which causes severe disruption of work at Mathabhanga Gr. Electric supply. And ( 8 ) WHEREAS it appears that on January 04, 1996, the Divisional Engineer Coochbehar (D)division had visited Mathabhanga Gr. E/s. and found that, Sri Munshi was absent from his head Quarters w. e. f. January 01, 1996 to january 4, 1996 for which no leave application was submitted by Sri Munshi. It was further observed by the D. E. that, the reason for such absence was not known to the Staff or the assistant Engineer, the immediate superior officer of Sri Munshi. On the subsequent check-up of the attendance sheet on May 4, 1996, it was observed by the D. E. , Coochbehar (D) Division that Sri Munshi had signed in the arrival/departure column in the register on january 1, 1996. For January 2, 1996, in the arrival column he had written DEs office. But surprisingly, in response to the memo no. CBD/staff/ Conf/3 dated January 24, 1996, Sri munshi had informed that, on January 1, 1996 he visited D. E. s office and during the period january 2, 1996 to January 4, 1996 he remained absent due to his personal affair. But surprisingly, in response to the memo no. CBD/staff/ Conf/3 dated January 24, 1996, Sri munshi had informed that, on January 1, 1996 he visited D. E. s office and during the period january 2, 1996 to January 4, 1996 he remained absent due to his personal affair. ( 9 ) THUS it appears that, Sri D. N. Munshi during his tenure at Mathabhanga Group electric Supply was very irregular in attendance and absented from his duties without permission or intimation, causing disruption of day to day work. ( 10 ) SUCH conduct of Sri Munshi, if proved, is unbecoming on part of an employee of the Board and tantamounts to an act of misconduct in terms of Regulation 61 (a) of w. B. S. E. B. E. S. Regulations. Charge-III ( 11 ) WHEREAS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi absented from Head Quarters (Mathabhanga Gr. E/s.) for 72 days out of 141 working days within the period November 9, 1995 (i. e. his date of joining) to April 30, 1996, and did not submit any leave application. In april, 1996, Sri Munshi was advised by the divisional Engineer to move from mathabhanga on April 15, 1996 and report back to the normal duties on April 19, 1996 positively in view of General Election, 1996 but Sri Munshi left H. Q. on April 12, 1996 and returned on April 30, 1996 violating the order of his Controlling Officer. As such, salary of sri D. N. Munshi for April, 1996 was kept suspended by the D. E. as no leave application/intimation/explanation was submitted by Sri D. N. Munshi, to his controlling Officer. And ( 12 ) WHEREAS it appears from the Memo no. Com/118 dated June 13, 1996 of theaddl. District Magistrate, Coochbehar, that, Sri d. N. Munshi, in his letter dated June 7, 1996 addressed to the District Magistrate, coochbehar, requested him to take necessary action towards release of his (Sri Munshis)salary. However, Divisional Engineer, coochbehar (D) Division, in his memo no. CBD/2/1674 dated June 15, 1996 clarified the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, coochbehar. ( 13 ) THUS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi, sae (E), previously attached to Mathabhanga group Electric Supply, unauthorisedly communicated his personal grievance pertaining to his employment in the Board, directly in the Government Authority, causing loss of reputation of the Board. CBD/2/1674 dated June 15, 1996 clarified the matter to the Additional District Magistrate, coochbehar. ( 13 ) THUS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi, sae (E), previously attached to Mathabhanga group Electric Supply, unauthorisedly communicated his personal grievance pertaining to his employment in the Board, directly in the Government Authority, causing loss of reputation of the Board. ( 14 ) SUCH conduct of Sri Munshi, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and violation of regulation 52 of WBSEBESR and tantamounts to an act of misconduct in terms of Regulation 61 (p) of WBSEBES Regulations. Charge IV ( 15 ) WHEREAS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi had joined at Mathabhanga Group electric Supply on November 09, 1995 and took over the charge of the Supply Station w. e. f. November 14, 1995. On May 03, 1996, de Coochbehar (D) Division received a telephonic message from the Asstt. Engineer, mathabhanga (O and M) Sub-Division that, a good amount of revenue collected from consumers had been kept in the office of the electric supply instead of sending the money to the Bank. On receipt of the information, the d. E. Cooch-behar (D) Division went to mathabhanga Gr. E/s on May 04, 1996 along with other Officers and Staff and verified the records and paid cash in presence of Sri D. N. Munshi. Following irregularities were observed on May 04, 1996 during inspection of DE. I) No remittance of revenue to the Division office was made with effect from April 15, 1996 from Mathabhanga Gr. E. S. II) Total liquid cash at wall coffer was Rs. 2,63,443. 75 p. III) Cheques and drafts found at wall coffer war for Rs. 1,70,096. 76 p. IV) It was also observed that cash book was found prepared only upto April 15, 1996 (without signature) and Sri D. N. Munshi, s. S did not sign the cash book since January 9, 1996. After verifying the contents, those were duly recorded in the Cash Book by the de and other Officers and Staff including sri D. N. Munshi. After verifying the contents, those were duly recorded in the Cash Book by the de and other Officers and Staff including sri D. N. Munshi. ( 16 ) WHEREAS it appears that, on May 5, 1996, Sri D. N. Munshi left head quarter to exercise franchise on May 7, 1996, with permission of the DE, but prior to leaving headquarter he did not hand over the keys of the wall coffer to any person officially and due to non- availability of keys, cash collection on may 6, 1996 was suspended causing financial loss to the Board. It further appears that, where de Coochbehar (D) Division came to know the fact, he rushed to Mathabhanga Or. E/s. on may 7, 1996 along with other Officers and found that, one of the keys was handed over to sri B. Ekka, Sr. Asst. of the Group of E/s. and another key was handed over to Sri Subhas chandra Day, Durwan (actually the key was given to the wife of Sri Subhas Chandra Dey)by Sri Munshi. The holder of the keys did not find it proper to open the wall coffer as they were not authorised and informed the matter to the Asstt. Engineer. And ( 17 ) WHEREAS it appears that, DE coochbehar (D) Division on May 7, 1996, again verified the cash and took necessary action for banking and a draft was purchased for Rs. 2,25,439. 15 p. on May 7, 1996. It also further appears that, draft for Rs. 1,47,433. 11 p. was lying at bank, which was also collected by the D. E. Moreover, on May 7, 1996, during verification it was observed that an amount of rs. 996. 43 p. was short from the actual amount as was recorded in the Cash Book which was duly signed by Sri Munshi on May 4, 1996, because of the fact that, on May 4, 1996 the total liquid cash at cash vault was found Rs. 2,63,443. 75 paise but on May 7, 1996, after opening the wall coffer a sum of Rs. 2,62,447. 32 p. only was found as liquid cash at wall coffer. 2,63,443. 75 paise but on May 7, 1996, after opening the wall coffer a sum of Rs. 2,62,447. 32 p. only was found as liquid cash at wall coffer. ( 18 ) THUS it appears that Sri D. N. Munshi, during his incumbency at Mathabhanga Group electric Supply did not remit the cash on regular basis as per norm of the Board, and did not sign the Cash Book as Station-in-Charge, which is violation of Circular No. 62 dated september 11, 1957 of the Chief Accounts officer, WBSEB. Further it also appears that on May 7, 1996, an amount of Rs. 996. 43 p. was found short from the actual amount as recorded on May 4, 1996 and there was no transaction on May 5, 1996 and May 6, 1996. ( 19 ) SUCH conduct of Sri Munshi, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and in violation of regulations 59 and 38 of WBSEBESR and tantamount to an act of misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 61 (b), 61 (d), 61 (e) and 61 (p) of WBSEBES regulations. Charge-V ( 20 ) WHEREAS it appears that in terms of office order No. 20 dated May 18. 1996 of the de, Coochbehar (D) Division, Sri D. N. Munshi, S. S. Mathabhanga Gr. E/s. was diverted to Coochbehar (D) Division and Sri indu Nath Sarkhel was asked to take over the charge of Mathabhanga Group Electric Supply. This order was issued by the D. E. , with approval of the S. E. Jalpaiguri (D) Circle, and as per delegation of power vide Office Order no. 4756 dated October 5, 1991 of the secretary, WBSEB, SE is empowered to transfer upto Class III level posts (Part II - SI. No. 3 ). ( 21 ) WHEREAS it appears that, on May 25, 1996, when Sri I. N. Sarkhel came to take over the changes of Mathabhanga Group Electric supply, Sri D. N. Munshi refused to hand over the charges to Sri Sarkhel and wrote a letter to the DE, Coochbehar (D) Division on May 25, 1996 mentioning the order No. 20 dated May 18, 1996 of the D. E. as "impugned order". However, Sri D. N. Munshi was released by the asstt. Engineer, Mathabhanga Gr. E/s. on june 4, 1996 (A. N.) on "as is where is basis". However, Sri D. N. Munshi was released by the asstt. Engineer, Mathabhanga Gr. E/s. on june 4, 1996 (A. N.) on "as is where is basis". ( 22 ) SUCH conduct of Sri Munshi, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and violation of regulations 59 and 38 of WBSEBESR and tantamounts to act of misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 61 (b), 61 (g)and 61 (p) of WBSEBES Regulations. Charge - VI ( 23 ) WHEREAS it appears that on June 3, 1996, at about 3 p. m. Sri D. N. Munshi, the then S. S. Mathabhanga Group Electric Supply came to Coochbehar (D) Division office and met Sri A. Bhattacharya, Sr. P and Admn. Officer at Division Office. It further appears that during discussion with Sr. P and A Officer, sri Munshi insulted the Sr. P and A Officer in a rude and uncivil manner and shown impertinence and insolence to his superior (Sr. P and A Officer ). ( 24 ) WHEREAS it appears that, after the incidents took place on June 3, 1996 Sri Munshi did not report to any Boards authority, but lodged an F. I. R. to the local police station against the Boards Officer on duty, and sent a fabricated report directly to the Ad (Illegible) (S and V ). ( 25 ) THUS it appears that Sri D. Munshi, s. S. Mathabhanga Group Electric Supply behaved in a rude and uncivil manner with his superior and lodged an F. I. R. against Boards officer without any reason which is not only breach of discipline but also defamation to the honour of an Officer of the Board. ( 26 ) SUCH conduct of Sri Munshi, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and tantamounts to an act of misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 61 (g), 61 (i) and 61 (p) of wbsebes Regulations. Charge-VII ( 27 ) WHEREAS it appears that on December 31, 1997, at about 4. 45 p. m. some employees including one retired employee were discussing about some matter not related to the Boards activity, within the Office premises of coochbehar (D) Division Office. (near canteen ). It is alleged that, Sri. Charge-VII ( 27 ) WHEREAS it appears that on December 31, 1997, at about 4. 45 p. m. some employees including one retired employee were discussing about some matter not related to the Boards activity, within the Office premises of coochbehar (D) Division Office. (near canteen ). It is alleged that, Sri. D. N. Munshi, all of a sudden blatantly passed certain derogatory remarks about some person, which was completely irrelevant and unwarranted and thereby hurt the feelings and sentiments of the other staff and workers present there. ( 28 ) WHEREAS it appears that, when such a slanderous remarks of Sri D. N. Munshi was protested and resisted by the employees present there, Sri D. N. Munshi became furious, violent and aggressive and behaved in a very rude and crude manner and created large scale resentment and stir among staff and workers present there. ( 29 ) FURTHER alleged that Sri D. N. Munshi tried to manhandle the staff and workers present there, thereby polluted the office atmosphere. ( 30 ) WHEREAS it appears that on December 31, 1997, at about 5. 15/5. 20 p. m. Sri D. N. Munshi entered the office chamber of the accounts Officer, Coochbehar (D) Division and without asking any permission from the a. D. he phoned local police station and asked police protection as he was restrained in the office premises by some people, which was not true. It also appears that afterwards, police came to the office and the DE requested them to leave office premises and managed the situation. ( 31 ) THUS it appears that, Sri D. N. Munshi unnecessarily and motivatedly caused disaffection among staff and workers by passing slanderous remarks and behaved in a rude and uncivil manner which is in contravention to all canons of good behaviour and discipline. Further, such behaviour of Sri munshi created large scale resentment among the staff and workers and thereby marred the office atmosphere. ( 32 ) SUCH conduct of Sri Munshi, if proved, is unbecoming on the part of an employee of the Board and tantamounts to an act of misconduct and breach of discipline in terms of Regulations 61 (g), 61 (k) and 61 (p)of w. B. S. E. B. S. E. Regulations. ( 33 ) THE appellant was, dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was impugned in the instant writ petition on various grounds. ( 33 ) THE appellant was, dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was impugned in the instant writ petition on various grounds. When the writ petition was initially moved at the instance of the appellant the learned single judge directed the respondent authority to make payment of all pecuniary benefits available to the appellant by his order dated September 7, 2000. ( 34 ) THE writ petition was finally heard by the learned single Judge. The learned single judge by his detailed judgment and order appearing at pages 407 to 431 of the paper book inter alia held that out of 7 charges 3 charges being charges No. 2, 3 and 4 were not established. The other 4 charges being charges no. 1,5,6 and 7 had been established, according to the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge also held that the charges 1, 5 and 6 were serious in nature. ( 35 ) AFTER holding that the charges No. 2, 3 and 4 had not been established learned Judge modified the punishment to the extent that the punishment of dismissal from service would be substituted by removal from service. The board accepted the said verdict and did not prefer any appeal. The appellant however impugned the order of the learned single Judge on the grounds mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal. ( 36 ) MR. Moloy Basu, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal, contended that since the learned Judge found that the charges 2, 3 and 4 had not been established he should not have altered the punishment and should have remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for consideration afresh. Mr. Bose further contended that the learned Judge while modulating the punishment failed to appreciate that the order of dismissal and order of removal amount to same in the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as the petitioner was aged about 59 years on the date of order of punishment and there would be hardly any scope for re-employment. ( 37 ) MR. Bose in support of his contention relied on two Apex Court decisions reported in om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3689 : 2001 (2) SCC 386 and Kailash Nath gupta v. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank and ors. AIR 2003 SC 1377 : 2003-II-LLJ-367. ( 37 ) MR. Bose in support of his contention relied on two Apex Court decisions reported in om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3689 : 2001 (2) SCC 386 and Kailash Nath gupta v. Enquiry Officer, Allahabad Bank and ors. AIR 2003 SC 1377 : 2003-II-LLJ-367. The Apex Court therein observed that when the court finds that appropriate punishment was not given and the same was disproportionate to the charges established against the delinquent, in normal course the Court should remand the matter to the authority. However, the Court has also power to modulate the punishment to shorten the litigation in rare cases. Mr. Bose contended that the enquiry proceeding was initiated in the year 1996 and resulted in the order of dismissal on November 1, 1999. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by its memo dated December 31, 2000. Hence, it was not a case where the delinquent was proceeded with for a long time and the order of punishment was pending before the Court of law for a substantial period. Hence, that was not a rare case within the meaning of the Apex court decision. ( 38 ) MR. Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the Board contended that the order of removal from service would entitle the appellant to get re-employment which was not available if the order of dismissal was sustained. Mr. Mitra however submitted that the charges so proved and established were serious in nature and the learned Judge rightly modulated the punishment by imposing penalty of removal from service. Mr. Mitra lastly contended that the appellant himself through the learned counsel invited the Court to modulate the punishment. Our attention was drawn to a portion of the judgment quoted below:"mr. D. Saha Roy thereupon contended that the punishment imposed in the case on hand was on the assumption the seven charges as framed has been proved. If the conclusions in respect of some of the charges cannot be sustained then contends, Mr. Saha Roy, the punishment of dismissal imposed is not warranted and would require reconsideration and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court. " ( 39 ) WE have duly examined the charges. We have also examined in detail the judgment and order of the learned single Judge. Saha Roy, the punishment of dismissal imposed is not warranted and would require reconsideration and, therefore, warrants interference by this Court. " ( 39 ) WE have duly examined the charges. We have also examined in detail the judgment and order of the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge upon a detailed deliberation came to a finding that the charges 1, 5, 6 and 7 had been established. The learned judge also came to a finding that the charges so proved were serious in nature being charges no. 1, 5 and 6. On the question of modulation of the punishment since we find that the learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited the court to modulate the punishment warranting interference on that score, having invited the court to modulate the punishment, the appellant was not entitled to question such interference when that went against him. Hence, we do not find any scope for interference. In the result, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. ( 40 ) THERE would be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for. ( 41 ) APPEAL dismissed. Ashok Kumar Mathur, J. I agree.