JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner, who was working as a Development Officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India ('Corporation' hereinafter) in its Jharsuguda Branch Office under Sambalpur Division, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Order Dated 30.3.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding on him the penalty of removal from service, vide Annexure-9, as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, i.e. the Chairman of the Corporation, affirming the award of penalty, vide Annexures 11 and 12 respectively, 2. Shortly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner on being appointed joined the Corporation on 9.11.1992 as an Apprentice Development Officer. In August, 1993 he was placed on probation and on completion of the probation period, he was confirmed. While working as such at Jharsuguda Branch Office under Sambalpur Division of the Corporation, the Disciplinary Authority,T.e., the Senior Divisional Manager, Sambalpur Division, initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner under Regulation 39 of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (in short 'the Staff Regulations') and served on him the charge-sheet dated 30.12.1995, vide Annexure-1, and asked him to submit his reply to the charges contained in the charge-sheet. The Petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges in Annexure-1. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the Petitioner proceeded with the disciplinary proceeding under Regulation 39 of the Staff Regulations and appointed an Enquiry Officer \o enquire into the charges. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 20.6.1996 to the Disciplinary Authority recording his finding that the allegation of absence of the Petitioner from the headquarters was proved. It was also found that the Petitioner had left the headquarters without any prior permission. The Disciplinary Authority served a copy of the enquiry report on the Petitioner along with notice to show cause and thereafter a second show cause notice was issued against the proposed penalty of removal from service. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 24.7.1996. The Disciplinary Authority on going through the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer passed the Order Dated 19,9.1996, vide Annexure-9, imposing major penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39 (i) (b) of the Staff Regulations. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 24.7.1996. The Disciplinary Authority on going through the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer passed the Order Dated 19,9.1996, vide Annexure-9, imposing major penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39 (i) (b) of the Staff Regulations. Against the aforesaid penalty, the Petitioner preferred an appeal on 13.11.1996 before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Zonal Manager, LIC, Kolkata, O.P. No. 2. Since the Appellate Authority did not dispose of the appeal, the Petitioner approached this Court In W.P.(C). No. 11639 of 1997. On receipt of notice issued in the Writ Petition, the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal by Order Dated 21.10.1997, vide Annexure-3, by rejecting the same. Against the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner approached the Chairman of the Corporation, O.P. No. 1, with a memorial praying to review the orders. The Chairman on going through the records and considering the grounds taken by the Petitioner, by Order Dated 14.9.1999, vide Annexure-4, set aside the orders dated 19.9.1996 and dated 21.10.1997 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority respectively and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry properly after affording reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to conduct his defence in respect of the charges. The Chairman further directed that the absence of the Petitioner from the date of his removal in terms of Order Dated 19.9.1996 till his joining as per the aforesaid order, would be treated as period not spent on duty. The Petitioner thereafter joined at Jharsuguda as the Development Officer on 25.10.1999 but on the same day he moved for Belpahar. In pursuance of the order of the Chairman in Annexure-4, de novo enquiry was started by appointing an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 30.12.1995. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 19.9.2000 vide Annexure-7. On 1.12.2000 the Disciplinary Authority issued notice to show cause against the proposed penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (f) of the Staff Regulations along with copy of the enquiry report. On completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 19.9.2000 vide Annexure-7. On 1.12.2000 the Disciplinary Authority issued notice to show cause against the proposed penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39 (1) (f) of the Staff Regulations along with copy of the enquiry report. The Petitioner submitted his reply on 27.1.2001, vide Annexure-B.The Disciplinary Authority ultimately passed the Order Dated 30.3.2002 imposing on the Petitioner the penalty of removal from service in terms of Regulation 39 (i) (f) of the Staff Regulations, vide Annexure-9. Against such penalty of removal from service, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 31.5.2002 vide Annexure-10, but the same was rejected by the Appellate Authority by the Order Dated 2.9.2002 in Annexure-H.The Petitioner thereafter filed a memorial under Regulation 49 before the Chairman but the same was also rejected by the Order Dated 3.10.2003, vide Annexure-12. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with a prayer to quash the impugned orders in Annexures 9.11 and 12. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the of removal from service inflicted on the Petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed against him and the Enquiry Officer went beyond the scope of his enquiry by arriving at a finding for which charge was not framed against the Petitioner. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that there was neither any illegality in the impugned orders or any infirmity in the disciplinary proceeding nor could the penalty awarded be termed to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges so as to warrant interference by this Court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties it has been indicated, and it was also argued by the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, that the Petitioner failed to perform his duty and served the Corporation faithfully and honestly and even did not recruit the required number of agents for.which his cost ratio during the appraisal year from 9.8.1994 to 31.8.1995 went upto 708.908% as against the prescribed cost norm of 24%. It was further stated that in spite of extending best possible help, guidance, Counselling and support and despite Issuance of performance review letters, the Petitioner failed to improve his performance for which the Petitioner was liable to be terminated as per Clause 9 (1) of the LIC of India Development Officer (Revision of certain terms and conditions of Service) Instructions, 1989. 5. Let us now see what are the charges framed against the Petitioner and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Five charges were framed against the Petitioner. Charge No. 1 was unauthorized absence and negligence to duty as the Petitioner was found absent from his headquarters without permission from the competent authority and this charge was proved. Charge No. 2 that the Petitioner did not attend the con selling session at the Divisional Office on 19.11.1994 and 12.6.1995, which was insubordination, was dropped being not relevant. Charge No. 3 was breach of discipline and a case of Insubordination as the delinquent did,not reply to the letter of the Division Office calling for his explanation about his absence from headquarters within the stipulated time and this charge was proved. Charge No. 4 that the delinquent officer went to Sambalpur on 1.9.1995 without taking prior permission from the competent authority was also proved. Charge No. 5 that the delinquent did not attend the fortnight closing dates of September, 1995, November 1995 and December, 1995 and thus committed negligence of duty and breach of discipline, was proved. But Learned Counsel for the Petitioner rightly drew our attention to the fact that there was no charge framed against the Petitioner so far as it relates to the allegation that the Petitioner was absent on fortnight closing dates of November, 1995 and December, 1995 and the same being not included in the charges, the finding of the Enquiry Officer In that regard so also the award of punishment on that score is illegal. 6. In this regard, we are conscious of the position that the scope of judicial review is very limited and restricted to only exceptional cases and penalty/punishment awarded in a departmental enquiry unless shockingly disproportionate, cannot be subjected to judicial interference. A court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it felt that punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. (See State of Meghalaya and Others Vs. A court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it felt that punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. (See State of Meghalaya and Others Vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak, . 7. As we find, the entire allegation against the Petitioner was that he was absent from headquarters unauthorisedly for the period from 17.3.1995 to 20.3.1995 and from 12.6.1995 to 30.12.1995 for which penalty of removal from service has been imposed on him. This specific allegation, however, does not find place in the charge- sheet as well as in the report of the Enquiry Officer. The only specific allegation is that the Petitioner did not attend the Counselling session held on 12.6.1995. 8. As we find, in this case the charges are not specific. But the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on five charges. The Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, but has taken new ground for imposing the major penalty, which is not legally available to the Disciplinary Authority. When charge has not been framed, punishment cannot be imposed basing upon certain new charges, without giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to defend his case. Therefore, the order imposing penalty is not legally tenable. Once the order imposing penalty goes, the subsequent orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority are bound to fail. We would have remanded the matter to the authorities for imposing a lesser punishment but as we find, this is the second round of litigation of the Petitioner in this Court, and the Petitioner is out of job since 1995, save and except a brief spell during which he was allowed to serve by the order of the Chairman of the Corporation. In order to cut short the delay, we set aside the impugned order of removal from service passed . by the Disciplinary Authority in Annexure-9 so also the affirming orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority in Annexures 11 and 12 respectively and direct reinstatement of the Petitioner in service without any financial benefit. The seniority of the Petitioner shall, however, be maintained and his pay shall be fixed notionally. 9. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost. R.N. Biswal, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed