Judgment :- (Presented under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Ka.Ku.No.1084/1102/D3/Tha Spoka/9B-3 dated 10.8.2000 as confirmed by the 1st Respondent in his proceedings Ka.No.1084/1102/D3 Tha naapoka/2000 dated 15.12.2000 and quash the same.) 1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein. 2. The facts leading to the above appeal are as follows: The appellant was employed as a Driver in the respondent-Corporation. He was issued with a charge memo dated 25.09.1998, charging him of - a) letting out the air from the front wheel of the bus bearing Regn.No. TN-32-970 (Route 333-B) and putting sawdust in the diesel tank of the vehicle on 9.9.1998. b) not attending duty on 10.9.1998 and also inciting others to strike work, thereby causing hindrance to official work. c) causing damage to buses with a view to prevent smooth operation of services. d) deliberately indulging in unlawful activities by obstructing the services of the respondent-Corporation. e) acting prejudicial to the interest of the respondent-Corporation and f) failure to discharge duties of a responsible employee. On the above charges, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 5.4.1999, holding the first charge not proved and the other charges proved. 3. After forwarding the copy of the enquiry report and obtaining his objection to the findings contained therein, the second respondent imposed a penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay from Rs.4,310/- to Rs.3,410/- in the time scale of Rs.3,410- 75-5, 510 for a period of three years with effect from 21.7.2000 by an order dated 10.8.2000. 4. Challenging the said order of the second respondent, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 21293 of 2000 on the file of this court. The said writ petition was dismissed on 30.8.2000, in limine on the ground that the appellant had a right of appeal to the first respondent and that the same should be exhausted, before approaching this Court. 5. Accordingly, the appellant filed an appeal to the first respondent herein. But the first respondent dismissed the appeal by an order dated 15.12.2000. As against the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.137 of 2001, but the same was also dismissed by the learned Judge, by an order dated 28.1.2003. 5. Accordingly, the appellant filed an appeal to the first respondent herein. But the first respondent dismissed the appeal by an order dated 15.12.2000. As against the said order, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.137 of 2001, but the same was also dismissed by the learned Judge, by an order dated 28.1.2003. Therefore, the appellant has filed the above appeal. 6. Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended - (i) that once the first charge is held not proved, the other charges which are of consequential nature, cannot be held proved and that therefore the findings of the Enquiry Officer accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were perverse in nature. (ii) that in an earlier batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.15282, 15808, 16329, 16340, 16351, 16395 and 17335 of 1998 filed by Pallavan Pokkuvarathu Kazhaga Anna Thozhilalar Sangam, challenging the action taken against the workmen who struck work on 9th and 10th September 1998, it was agreed by the management that all proceedings, including the criminal proceedings against the workmen, will be dropped and that therefore the penalty imposed upon the appellant was contrary to the undertaking given by the management in the first batch of writ petitions. 7. Per contra, Mr. V.R. Kamalanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the first charge held not proved, related to the happenings on 9.9.1998, but the second charge related to the happenings on 10.9.1998. Therefore, even if the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the first charge was not proved is accepted, the other charges would not automatically go. In so far as the undertaking given by the management in the earlier batch of writ petitions is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pointed out that the undertaking should be read as confined only to those against whom serious and specific acts of misconduct were not attributed. 8. We find from the report of the Enquiry Officer that the case of the appellant was sought to be distinguished from those involved in the earlier batch of cases, primarily on the basis of the first charge viz., that the appellant let out the air from the front wheel of the bus and put sawdust in the diesel tank of the vehicle on 9.9.1998. But this charge has been held not proved by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has not chosen to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer in so far as the first charge is concerned. The Appellate Authority also accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the first charge. Therefore the real sting out of the charges is taken away by the finding in respect of charge No.1. 9. It is only on account of the fact that the appellant was held guilty only of minor charges and was found not guilty of the serious charge, that the Disciplinary Authority himself imposed only a penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay from Rs.4,310/- to Rs.3,410/- in the time scale of Rs.3,410-75-5,510 for a period of three years with effect from 21.7.2000, by an order dated 10.8.2000, though in the second show cause notice, the proposal was to impose a reduction in the time scale of pay for five years. In other words, the appellant has been imposed with a penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay for a period of three years, on account of charges 2 to 6 which have been held proved. But charges 2 to 6 are of such a nature as would fall within the scope of the undertaking given by the respondents in the earlier batch of writ petitions. Moreover, the order of penalty specifically says that the penalty imposed therein would have the effect of postponing further increments of the appellant, ultimately having a serious impact on his retirement and pensionary benefits. 10. In view of these far reaching consequences, we are of the view that the punishment is grossly disproportionate, especially in the light of the fact that only minor and consequential charges have been held proved and the respondents have also treated others differently. Under such circumstances, we would normally be inclined to set aside the order of penalty and remit the matter back to the respondents for a fresh look into the quantum of penalty. But a period of eight years has already lapsed from the date of initiation of the proceedings and hence, such an order of remand would only prolong the agony of the appellant. 11. But a period of eight years has already lapsed from the date of initiation of the proceedings and hence, such an order of remand would only prolong the agony of the appellant. 11. Therefore, in the light of the above circumstances, we hereby set aside the order impugned in the writ petition, allow the writ appeal and modify the penalty into one of reduction in the time scale of pay, as proposed by the respondents, only for a period of one year instead of for three years. 12. The writ appeal is ordered on the above terms. No costs.