ORDER :- The writ petition is filed partly aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani made in I.D.No.23 of 1991, dated 18-3-1994, wherein the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court while totally agreeing with the finding of the guilt of the petitioner in respect of all the three charges held proved against him, it has granted the relief of directing appointment of petitioner as a fresh conductor without continuity of service and without any back wages and with a further direction that the petitioner shall work for a period of one year on a gross salary of 90%. 2. It is needless to refer to the facts in the case for the reason that the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not join issue on the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority as confirn1ed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. All that the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends is that while directing issue of fresh appointment to the petitioner, the Tribunal has not granted the petitioner the benefit of past service and other monetary benefits. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the Award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, as already noticed above, is in full agreement with the findings of the disciplinary authority that all the three charges are proved. Having so held, the Industrial Tribunal felt that the punishment of removal is disproportionate and granted relief as mentioned above. 4. It is well settled by a long line of judgments that the Tribunals or Courts while reviewing the punishment awarded in disciplinary cases would not normally substitute their opinion on the quantum of punishment and that the punishments awarded by the disciplinary authorities are generally not interfered with unless the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the gravity of charges, that they shock the judicial conscience of the Courts/ Tribunals. A few judgments to be cited in this regard are Union of India v. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 , Omkumar v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , V Ramana v. APSRTC, (2005) 7 SCC 338 = 2006 AILD 58 (SC) and Ramsaran v. I.G. Police, (2006) 2 SCC 541 = 2006 AILD 185 (SC). 5. A few judgments to be cited in this regard are Union of India v. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 , Omkumar v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , V Ramana v. APSRTC, (2005) 7 SCC 338 = 2006 AILD 58 (SC) and Ramsaran v. I.G. Police, (2006) 2 SCC 541 = 2006 AILD 185 (SC). 5. In the light of this settled legal principle, I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ought to have awarded further reliefs of monetary benefits and continuity of service. 6. Having considered the case in its entirety, I feel that the petitioner has already got a reprieve from the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court by way of securing a fresh appointment for himself though the Tribunal was in total agreement with the findings of Departmental authorities on the misconduct of the petitioner and I feel that the petitioner should be satisfied with that. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, I am not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.