JUDGMENT Abhay M. Naik, J. Facts leading to the writ petition are described as hereunder: The electricity in the township of Mhow used to be supplied prior to the year 1957, by private licencce. In the year 1957, the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board took over the job of supply of electricity from the licencee. Copper being a good conductor, the wires made from it, were used for the supply of electricity. Theft of copper wires became quite common, so, the Electricity Board after taking over, decided to replace the same by aluminium wire. Physical verification of copper wire used for the supply of electricity was not actually made. Instead, the Electricity Board accepted the entries made by the licencee in his record at the time of handing over. The process of replacing copper wire by aluminium wire continued for number of years. The petitioner took charge as Assistant Engineer in April, 1966, when such process of replacement was going on. In August, 1970, the petitioner was transferred from Mhow to Jabalpur. Copper wire of various gauge removed at the time of replacement were recorded a scrap material in M.A.S. (Material at Site). No objection was taken at the relevant time during the posting of the petitioner at Mhow. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred from Jabalpur to Panna in the same capacity i.e. Assistant Engineer. During his posting at Panna, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet contained in Annx. P/1. It was stated in the charges that the petitioner while functioning as Assistant Engineer, Mhow from April, 1966 to August, 1970 did not bring on record some quantity of copper conductors removed from the lines in the town of Mhow and nearby villages and did not maintain proper accounts. He omitted to make some entries in the measurement book. It was further mentioned in the charge-sheet that during the aforesaid period he used to store some of the copper wires removed from the lines and obviously the copper conductors were kept unaccounted for. The petitioner was accused of misappropriating 4.34 M. Tons of heavy stranded copper conductor removed from the line. He did not return 6.81 M. Tons of heavy stranded copper conductors to the store. The petitioner was accused of misappropriating 4.34 M. Tons of heavy stranded copper conductor removed from the line. He did not return 6.81 M. Tons of heavy stranded copper conductors to the store. He has also been accused of misappropriating solid copper conductors to the extent of 5.56 M. Tons stranded copper conductors, approximately, removed from the lines and disposed of the solid copper conductors unauthorisedly with the object of misappropriation. The petitioner was, thus, charged with the allegation of committing grave misconduct. The petitioner requested the concerning authority to supply him copy of documents referred to in the list of documents to enable him to file his defence. The documents were not supplied and, instead, the petitioner was forced to submit the statement of his defence. Accordingly, the same was filed on 17-11-1975 (Annx. P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner was permitted to inspect the relevant records. After such inspection, the petitioner submitted his detailed defence on 5-1-1976 contained in Annx.P/4. Thus, the charges levelled against the petitioner were denied. It is a specific defence that the petitioner followed the procedure which was being adopted and followed by his predecessor from the year 1957. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice proposing his dismissal (AnnEx. P/29) which was accompanied by the enquiry report (Annx. P/28). The enquiry officer found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him and the Electricity Board, accepting the findings of the enquiry officer passed an order of dismissal of the petitioner vide order dated 5-3-1985 (AnnEx. P/30). Appeal preferred against the same was dismissed on 12-9-1986 vide Annx. P/31. The petitioner preferred Misc. Petition No. 1001/1988 which was partly allowed by this Court on 24-11-1992 (Annx. P.32) with the direction to the Board to decide the appeal on merits. The appeal was not decided timely. The petitioner again filed Contempt Petition (M.C.C. No. 341/1996). On receipt of the notice of Contempt Petition, the Board without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decided the appeal vide order dated 2-7-1994 (Annx. P/33) dismissing thereby the petitioner's appeal. Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior counsel, submitted that a preliminary enquiry was initially conducted in the month of April, 1970 by Shri J.G. James, Deputy Chief Engineer, who found that complaint against the petitioner was bogus. P/33) dismissing thereby the petitioner's appeal. Shri P.R. Bhave, learned Senior counsel, submitted that a preliminary enquiry was initially conducted in the month of April, 1970 by Shri J.G. James, Deputy Chief Engineer, who found that complaint against the petitioner was bogus. However, a second preliminary enquiry was again held in the month of December, 1970, and on the basis of this second preliminary enquiry, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel. Shri Bhave, submitted that no physical verification at the time of taking over by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, was actually made and merely on the basis of the entries maintained by the previous licencee, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of misappropriation. Moreover, he submitted that the weighment of the copper wire/conductors was not made in his presence. Learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the procedure adopted and followed by the petitioner was the same which used to be observed by his predecessors from the year 1957, so no fault can be found with him and the petitioner cannot be alone punished for the alleged occurrence. Lastly, learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioner having rendered services for more than 18 years, the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate and is not sustainable in law. Shri Anoop Nair, Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. He submitted that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on the material on record which are not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, he submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner from the services is totally justified. Considered the submissions and perused the record. Judicial review, generally speaking, is not directed against the decision as held by the Apex Court in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, but is directed against the "decision making process." The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the employer but the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even or an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the authority, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review as held by the Apex Court in Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, . The High Court in exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not function as a Court of appeal in the findings of the disciplinary authority. It can interfere as per the Apex Court in the findings of the disciplinary authority if they are utterly perverse. The findings of the disciplinary authority in the present case are to be examined in the light of the principles laid down in Wednesbury case long back in 1948. It is held that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator lo take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. It is further held that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered; or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. These principles were constantly followed in India. Considering the case in hand on the aforesaid parameters, it has been found in the enquiry that the petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Engineer at Mhow during the period from April, 1966 to August, 1970, removed copper conductors from old lines in the town of Mhow and nearby villages, namely, Navda, Panda and Rasalpura. As per the entries made in the measurement book by the petitioner and other evidence, it has been found that 21.275 M. Tones of copper wire was removed from lines but only 15.739 M. Tons of copper wires has been returned in the area stores. It has been further found that copper conductors removed from Navda was about 8.312 M. Tons, whereas, only 2.776 M. Tons of copper conductors has been accounted for. It has been further found that copper conductors removed from Navda was about 8.312 M. Tons, whereas, only 2.776 M. Tons of copper conductors has been accounted for. The solid copper conductors unaccounted for during his period was 5.536 M. Tons on the basis of book entries. The petitioner has also even taken out more copper wires from the lines without making entries in the measurement book. It has also been found that 11.722 M. Tons of stranded copper was removed from the lines as could be found from the measurement book, but only 4.841 M. Tons of stranded copper was returned by the petitioner to the area stores, leaving a balance of 6.881 M. Tons unaccounted for. Similarly, it has been further found that from the Railway Feeder Kid Road. Gosal Road and Gokulganj East, the petitioner removed heavy stranded conductors amounting to 1.82 M. Tons in the year 1969. The petitioner has been found to have not taken into account heavy stranded copper conductor removed from the lines. Similarly, the petitioner is not found to have accounted for 48 wire spans of 37/14 stranded copper conductor removed from Rasalpura weighing 2.52 M. Tons. Similarly, the petitioner is found to have entered the span length of copper in measurement book Nos. 453, 413 and 957. Thus, the measurement books were not found to have been properly maintained. All the aforesaid omissions were found to be deliberate and with a view to misappropriate the items. The findings based on the material on record could not be pointed out to be incorrect. In view of this the findings of the disciplinary authority and consequently the order of punishment based on such findings are not impeachable. Next question which crops up is about quantum of punishment. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and is not sustainable in law. To buttress his submission, learned Senior counsel relied upon the decision reported as B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, and Arvind Dixit vs. Director General of Police, M.P. and others, 2003 MPLSR 124. In the first case, the Apex Court has held: The disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. Union of India and others, and Arvind Dixit vs. Director General of Police, M.P. and others, 2003 MPLSR 124. In the first case, the Apex Court has held: The disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/ appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. this Court in the case reported as Arvind Dixit vs. Director General of Police, M.P. and others (supra) was dealing with a constable who at the time of inspection lost his temper and removed his belt and cap and put it on the ground. Considering the magnitude and gravity of misconduct, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police to consider the case and award some minor punishment. In the present case, grave misconduct is found to have been proved which relates to theft of institutional material and misappropriation of the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A.T. Mane, , was dealing with an employee's case who was found guilty of misappropriation. The Supreme Court held in paragraph 12 as under: Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. Earlier also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. Earlier also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. vs. B.S. Hullikatti, (2001)2 SCC 574 , has held that the act of the employee was dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefor with the quantum of punishment. Since the petitioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct involving theft of copper material and misappropriation of the copper material, this Court applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court, as stated hereinabove, declines to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed however, without order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed