Judgment 1. By this petition, the petitioner prayed that impugned order of the Tribunal dated 012.2001 be quashed and set aside and petitioner-respondent No. 1 be dismissed from the service. 2. The applicant-respondent while working as TGT (Maths) at Kendriya Vidyalay No. 1 on 23.02.1999 manhandled with Shri R.D. Shah, Principal , Kendriya Vidyalay No.1, Suratgarh. On next date the applicant-petitioner submitted written apology for his misconduct, thereafter, enquiry was initiated in the matter. No eye-witness was produced. On the basis of written apology tendered, the disciplinary authority has taken the view that it is a case of dismissal. Thereafter, the applicant-respondent has filed the application before the Tribunal. Tribunal also found that there is no eye-witness of incident and there is a written apology from the applicant-petitioner and considering the nature of allegation Tribunal found that the punishment is disproportionate and reduced the punishment of removal of service to stoppage of three grade increments for the period of five years with cumulative effect. In the end Tribunal directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment to be awarded to the applicant for the alleged misconduct. 3. Mr. Gurjar Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the charge is proved, the Court should not interfere in the quantum of punishment. He also brought to our notice two-three cases where the Court held that when any person has given beating to his superior, the dismissal punishment is not disproportionate to the misconduct. 4. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma, 2005 (3) Supreme Court Cases 401, the employee having hit superior officer with tension screw on his back and nose, leaving him with a bleeding and broken nose and their Lordships held that punishment of dismissal cannot be termed as disproportionate. 5. In Union of India and Ors. vs. Narain Singh, 2002 AIR SCW 2172, the employee was in the military service and when he misbehaved with his superior, the Court has taken serious note of it and held that reduction of sentence, particularly in military, para military or police services can have a demoralising effect and would be a retrograde step as far as such service is concerned. 6. 6. In the instance case, the admitted facts are that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the presenting officer on behalf of department himself accepts that in absence of eye-witness it cannot be stated that the charge levelled against Shri Satbir Singh Mahla is proved. The case is based on the sole evidence of written apology tendered on the next day of the incident i.e. Annexure -3. In that nowhere he has said that he has beaten the Principal. He has only stated that due to imbalance of his mental status, he committed the mistake. 7. We read this written apology and conclusion of the presenting officer. It is difficult to say that he has given any beating to the Principal on 23.03.1999. Therefore, considering the facts brought on record the punishment has been reduced from removal of service to stoppage of three grade increments for the period of five years with cumulative effect. 8. There is no eye-witness of incident. It may be a case of manhandling and for manhandling the punishment of removal from service appears to be disproportionate and when Tribunal has punishment in its order to stoppage of three grade increments for the period of five years, no interference is called for. 9. The petition stands dismissed.