Judgment :- F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. The petitioners, six in number, are aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, dated 4. 2000 passed in O.A.No.1367 of 2000, confirming the order of the second respondent dated 111. 1999 passed in Sae.Mu.Aa.No.9038/tha/98. 2. The petitioners were all employed as Watchmen in the second respondent-Institute. They were on duty between 111. 1998 and 111. 1998 which were holidays. On 111. 1998, it was noticed that theft had taken place in the Stores of the second respondent-Institute, in which the following items were found to have been stolen, the value of which was assessed in a sum of Rs.1,47,934/-:- TABLE The authorities found out that thieves had entered the building premises by breaking open the jolly works with large hammer (TAMIL) as well as by smashing the door as well as by breaking open the almirahs. 3. It was in the above stated circumstances, all the petitioners were issued with the memo dated 111. 1998. A criminal complaint was also lodged on 111. 1998 itself. The petitioners filed their explanation dated 2/12. 1998, in which the petitioners took a simple stand that they were all on guard duty on the respective dates, namely between 111. 1998 and 111. 1998 and that in their duty hours, they did not hear any noise and that they performed their duty expected of them. 4. Not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioners, the second respondent held an oral enquiry. In the enquiry, all the petitioners fully participated and maintained their stand which they made in their explanation dated 2/12. 1998. .5. The disciplinary authority, on an analysis of the evidence available before him, has noted as under in paragraphs 6 to 8: .TAMIL .6. It is relevant to note that it is not as if that any of the petitioners as Watchman was able to detect the theft and brought it to the notice of the second respondent. On the other hand, they simply took the stand that nothing had happened during their duty hours, while as a matter of fact, it was found out that there was an open robbery that had taken place by house breaking into the premises by breaking open the jolly works with a large hammer, one of the doors as well as the almirah, all of them, were broken open with the aid of the large hammer (TAMIL). Therefore, it was too tall a story of the petitioners to believe that nothing had happened during their duty hours. Either the petitioners irrespective of the noise heard by them were not inclined to prevent the theft or they themselves were party to the incident. In such circumstances, the ultimate conclusion of the second respondent in having found that the petitioners were guilty and responsible for the theft as well as the loss incurred by the second respondent-Institute, cannot be found fault with. 7. In fact, for the utter disregard displayed in the performance of duties by the petitioners, they deserve the extreme punishment of dismissal. We feel that the second respondent was lenient in the imposition of punishment by merely passing a specific order for recovery of the loss, that too, in easy instalments of Rs.820/-. In spite of such a grave misconduct committed by the petitioners, lenient punishment was imposed by ordering only recovery of the total loss in 30 monthly instalments, in equal proportion by all the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the first and sixth petitioners had retired from the service and the third petitioner is no more. Learned counsel also states that recovery had been effected to the full extent. Though learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there were seven watchmen altogether, and that the seventh person was let off without any action being taken against him, we are not persuaded by the said submission, inasmuch as exoneration of the seventh person alone would not mitigate the seriousness of the misconduct alleged against the petitioners or that, that by itself would result in exoneration of the petitioners from the charges which were amply proved against the petitioners. 9. Looked at from any angle, we do not find any scope to interfere with the order of the second respondent dated 111. 1999 and the confirmation of the same by the third respondent-Tribunal in its order dated 4. 2000 passed in O.A.No.1367 of 2000. .10. In the above context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decision of His Lordship Justice Sri Balakrishna Ayyar, reported in 1959 (II) LLJ 619 (Royal Printing Works vs. Industrial Tribunal and another), which was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 1963 (II) LLJ 60 (Royal Printing Works vs. Industrial Tribunal). In the above context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decision of His Lordship Justice Sri Balakrishna Ayyar, reported in 1959 (II) LLJ 619 (Royal Printing Works vs. Industrial Tribunal and another), which was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 1963 (II) LLJ 60 (Royal Printing Works vs. Industrial Tribunal). In the decision reported in 1959 (II) LLJ 619 (cited supra), Sri Balakrishna Ayyar, J. has stated how in such circumstances, any misplaced sympathy would result in serious inroads into the discipline of an organisation, in the following words in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment: ."There are certain passages in the order of the tribunal which as I understand them suggest that carelessness on the part of an employee in relation to his work would not justify serious punishment. With this view I definitely disagree. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. I shall not refer to the classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his post and allows the enemy to slip through. There are other more familiar instances. A compositor who carelessly places a plus sign instead of a minus sign in a question paper may cause numerous examinees to fail. A compounder in a hospital or chemists shop who makes up the mixtures or other medicines carelessly may cause quite a few deaths. The man at an airport who does not carefully filter the petrol poured into a plane may cause it to crash. The railway employee who does not set the point carefully may cause a head-on collision. Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil. Carelessness and indifference to duty are not the high roads to individual or national prosperity." (emphasis supplied by us) 11. Applying the above said principle we are of the view that the petitioners do not deserve any sympathy in the matter of punishment as ordered by the second respondent. There is therefore no merits in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.