Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Elango, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The present writ petitioner was a police Constable in the Armed Reserve Police. A disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him on the allegation that he had allowed one prisoner to escape. It was found at the enquiry that the present petitioner was negligent and had allowed the prisoner to escape. Punishment of removal from service was inflicted. The petitioner, after exhausting the remedies available departmentally, filed O.A. No.5082 of 2000. 3. The only contention raised before the Tribunal was with regard to the disproportionate punishment inflicted on the petitioner. The Tribunal, on consideration of various facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal was too harsh and shockingly disproportionate and accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect and denial of backwage for the period of unemployment. Such order has been challenged by the writ petitioner, but, however, no writ petition has been filed by the Government. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no material to establish that due to the negligence of the petitioner, the prisoner had escaped and therefore, no punishment should have been inflicted on the petitioner. 5. We have gone through the entire materials on record. We do not think, it is open to the petitioner to now contend in the above manner, as we find that the petitioner had never challenged the basis of the finding in the disciplinary proceedings while the matter was argued before the Tribunal, as apparent from the following observations of the Tribunal:- "The learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the finding that the applicant has been negligent in guarding the prisoner entrusted to his custody which enabled the prisoner to escape from lawful custody. The applicant would contend that the punishment of removal from service for this proved charge is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate and thereby invites intervention of this Tribunal with regard to punishment." (Emphasis supplied by us) 6. From the above tenor of submissions made by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it is evident that the petitioner had accepted his negligence, but only had raised on the question of proportionality of punishment. From the above tenor of submissions made by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it is evident that the petitioner had accepted his negligence, but only had raised on the question of proportionality of punishment. In such view of the matter, we hardly see any scope to entertain the argument now advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.