Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-In view of similar set of facts and prayers made, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Both the petitioners have been working as Development Officer Gr I for last more than 25 years. Being active members of the General Insurance Development Officers Association (Oriental Unit), petitioner Mr. Raj Kumar Tiwari had been the President and Mr. J.K. Sharma, General Secretary of the Association at the relevant time. 3. As has come on record, the association decided to take up the cause of one of senior members and Ex-General Secretary Mr. Surendra Sharma before the management. It has been alleged that in the departmental enquiry against above Mr. Surendra Sharma, the Enquiry Officer Mr. R.B. Shami, Manager (HQ) had been proceeding in an arbitrary manner. Even when Mr. Surendra Sharma had been hospitalised, the Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry against Mr. Surender Sharma on 010.1996 in spite of representation made by the Association. It has further been submitted that intervention of this Court was sought and an interim order had also been passed by this Court on 010.1996 staying further enquiry proceedings against Mr. Surendra Sharma. It has further been submitted that the interim order passed by this Court on 010.1996 in the matter of Mr. Surendra Sharma infuriated not only the Enquiry Officer but some of the senior officers of the Regional Office also. An FIR was lodged by Mr. R.B. Shami at 8.15 PM on 010.1996. The incident alleged to have taken place at about 11.15 AM the same day. It has been reported by the complainant that both the petitioners alongwith about 25 Development Officers stopped the car in which the Enquiry Officer Mr. R.B. Shami as also Mr. S.B. Malhotra, Regional Manager and Mr. S.C. Singhvi, AO, were sitting at Statue Circle, Jaipur when the above persons were returning from SMS Hospital after verifying that Mr. Surendra Sharma had actually been hospitalised or not. It has been alleged that the petitioners alongwith other Development Officers not only assaulted Mr. R.B. Shami but also abused him. Similar incident was again repeated at the regional office at about 12.00 noon when they reached there. 4. The petitioners were put under suspension vide order dated 110.1996. However, as per directions of this Court, a formal charge-sheet was issued to the petitioners only on 20.01.1997. R.B. Shami but also abused him. Similar incident was again repeated at the regional office at about 12.00 noon when they reached there. 4. The petitioners were put under suspension vide order dated 110.1996. However, as per directions of this Court, a formal charge-sheet was issued to the petitioners only on 20.01.1997. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on 13.02.1997. The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 31.05.1997. After issuing a show cause notice and supplying a copy of the enquiry report, the punishment of removal from service was imposed on both the petitioners vide order dated 09.07.1997. The appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 29.08.1997. On a further memorial been submitted before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the petitioners, however, have been ordered to be reinstated with a penalty of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay applicable to Development Officer Gr. I vide order dated 20.10.1997. Hence, the present writ petitions. 5. While assailing the departmental proceedings and alleging allegations not proved, learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that it is a clear case of victimization because of union activities. It has also been submitted that even the substituted punishment is shockingly disproportionate, wherein the petitioners have been put to lowest rank of the pay scale causing great financial loss to them throughout their service career. In other words, there is punishment of stopping of almost 13 grade increments with cumulative effect. An additional affidavit alongwith a statement, as submitted by both the petitioners, showing their outstanding record of last more than 11 years, has been relied upon. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that looking to the serious misconduct committed by the petitioners, since a lenient view has already been taken by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director no further interference is called for by this Court. 7. After having considered submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record. 8. So far as outstanding performance of both the petitioners is concerned, neither the same has been disputed nor any other adverse record has been produced or brought to the notice of the Court. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 010.1996. Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer Mr. R.B. Shami had conducted departmental enquiry against Mr. 8. So far as outstanding performance of both the petitioners is concerned, neither the same has been disputed nor any other adverse record has been produced or brought to the notice of the Court. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 010.1996. Admittedly, the Enquiry Officer Mr. R.B. Shami had conducted departmental enquiry against Mr. Surendra Sharma on 010.1996 in spite of representation been made by the Association in regard to hospitalisation of Mr. Surendra Sharma. It is also not disputed that there have been an interim order passed by this Court on 010.1996 staying further enquiry proceedings against Mr. Surendra Sharma. Even otherwise, there was no occasion for the Enquiry Officer to go to the hospital to enquire whether Mr. Surendra Sharma had actually been hospitalised or not. The incident alleged to have taken place at 11.15 AM at Statue Circle, Jaipur, when the Enquiry Officer with other officers referred above were returning back to office from the hospital. The Statue Circle, Jaipur, is the busiest circle in the city within high security zone at a stone throwing distance from Secretariat and other Government Offices. The FIR had been lodged only at 8.15 PM on 010.1996. As has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners, even the police did not proceed with further investigation and submitted final report in the matter. 9. Be that as it may, without making any further observations on the merits as to whether the departmental enquiry held against the petitioners was in accordance with law and whether the allegations made against them have been proved or not, in the facts of this case, the appellate authority as also the Chairman-cum-Managing Director should have taken a more lenient and pragmatic view. It cannot be denied that both the petitioners were the President and General Secretary of the Association at the relevant time and had taken up a genuine cause of their brother officer. The genuineness of the cause also reflects from the fact that an interim order has also been passed by this Court in the same matter and on the very same day. Both the petitioners have an outstanding record not only before their removal from service but also after their reinstatement under the orders of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. The genuineness of the cause also reflects from the fact that an interim order has also been passed by this Court in the same matter and on the very same day. Both the petitioners have an outstanding record not only before their removal from service but also after their reinstatement under the orders of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. As per the statement gathered from the official record itself , it transpires that both the petitioners are among top 5 Development Officers of the respondent company in last four years. A bare perusal of the statement would show that both the petitioners were able to procure business for the company beyond the targets fixed year after year which only shows their sincerity, hard work and sheer devotion. Mere incentive to the employees is not relevant when the ultimate beneficiary is the company. Such consistent performance need to be appreciated, encouraged and rewarded and not to be discouraged or re primed. Minor incidents during the course of union activities with a genuine reasonable cause should always be taken lightly if not ignored in the larger interest of the company itself . Even if some minor scuffle or exchange of heated words are presumed on the day of incident, considering the over all facts and circumstances, in my opinion, a written warning to the petitioners would have been sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.10.1997 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director are modified to the extent that both the petitioners would be entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits and the penalty of removal from service shall be substituted by a penalty of written warning to both the petitioners to be entered in their service record. In view of the directions issued above, the consequential orders be passed by the respondents within thirty days of receipt of certified copy of this order and arrears may also be paid to both the petitioners within thirty days thereafter.