Judgment K.C.Puri, J. 1. Punjab State and another have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1986 passed by Shri Kamaljit Singh Grewal, the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1983 delivered by Shri Tara Singh, the then Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Amritsar was accepted. 2. The brief facts are that Mohan Singh has challenged order dated 3.8.1982 passed by defendant No. 2 vide which his services were terminated after holding an inquiry. It is alleged that the plaintiff was employed as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar. He was served charge-sheet on 5.9.1982 without calling his explanation. He was not supplied a copy of charge sheet. The imputation against the plaintiff was he remained absent from duty on 15.1.1982 and secondly the plaintiff had put the Government to a loss of Rs. 39/70P by not punching the police vouchers despite the fact that the Valuation Branch prepared the way bill and valued the tickets sold on that day by the plaintiff and the amount of the tickets sold against the police vouchers was deducted from the actual amount worked out by the Valuation Branch. 3. The suit was contested by the State of Punjab. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed; 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?OPP. 2. WhetherThis Court has got no jurisdiction in the matter? OPD. 3. Relief. 4. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence on the file returned finding on issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and in view of finding on issue No. 1, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said judgment and decree, Mohan Singh, the original plaintiff preferred an appeal. The said appeal was accepted by Shri Kamaljit Singh Grewal, the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar by holding that the punishment awarded by the Punishing Authority is harsh and does not commensurate with the act of the plaintiff. It was observed that the plaintiff has simply absented for one day and has not punched the vouchers and for that purpose, awarding punishment of termination of services is harsh. It was further observed that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner and no sound reasoning has been given. 6. Mr. It was observed that the plaintiff has simply absented for one day and has not punched the vouchers and for that purpose, awarding punishment of termination of services is harsh. It was further observed that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner and no sound reasoning has been given. 6. Mr. Yitender Sharma, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, has formulated the following question of law: Whether the Punishing Authority is required to give reasons for awarding punishment and whether the first Appellate Court was right in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court? 7. Mr. Sharma has submitted that it is not necessary for Disciplinary Authority to record reasons if full-fledged inquiry has been conducted and the Punishing Authority agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. To fortify his arguments, he has relied upon authority reported as The State of Haryana and Ors. v. Shri Ram Chander 1976 (2) Services Law Reporter 690. 8. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. 9. It is not a case where the Disciplinary Authority has not given reasoning while agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. In this case, the learned first Appellate Court has held that the Appellate Authority has acted in a mechanical manner and on that count, the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. That being a finding of fact cannot be challenged in the Regular Second Appeal. 10. Another strong circumstance which militates against the case of the Punjab State is that the punishment is very harsh. It is not in the interest of justice that a delinquent official should be punished like anything. The allegations against the plaintiff are that he absented for one day and had not punched the police vouchers valuing at about Rs. 39.70P. Awarding punishment of termination of services of the plaintiff even if these allegations are proved is very harsh. So, that finding of the learned first Appellate Court does not call for any interference. 11. Otherwise also, it is admitted during the course of arguments that Mohan Singh plaintiff died on 15.4.1994 and his family has been granted family pension. So, interference at this stage would amount to grave injustice to the family of the deceased. So, the question of law, formulated above, stands answered against the State,as discussed above. 12. 11. Otherwise also, it is admitted during the course of arguments that Mohan Singh plaintiff died on 15.4.1994 and his family has been granted family pension. So, interference at this stage would amount to grave injustice to the family of the deceased. So, the question of law, formulated above, stands answered against the State,as discussed above. 12. In view of above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. There is no order as to costs, so far as this Regular Second Appeal is concerned. 13. Decree sheet be prepared. Files of the Courts below be sent back after due compliance and the file of this Court be consigned to the Record Room.