Judgment Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order Respondent passed in C.No.F4/PR 38/05, dated 110. 2005 and to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with all monetary and attendant benefits. 2. Brief facts in nutshell are as follows: (i) Petitioner was enlisted as a Gr.II Police constable on 11.03.1980 A.N.. He was promoted as Head Constable on 011. 1989. He was incharge of the Mounted Branch, attached with the Armed Reserve, Coimbatore City Police w.e.f 25.03.1991. For the charges of cutting four trees owned by Government worth about Rs.3,000/- with the assistance of private personnel without obtaining prior permission from his superiors. (ii) Petitioner was placed under suspension from 24.04.2005. Petitioner is alleged to have sold cut trees and misappropriated the amount. Petitioner was issued with the charge memo in PR 38/F4/05 u/r 3(b) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules 1955 for the aforesaid delinquency.Addl.Dy.Commr of Police, PEW, Coimbatore city had conducted an oral enquiry and held the charge against the Petitioner as proved based on the evidence established by prosecution. The report of Enquiry Officer was furnished to the Petitioner and further representation was called for. Petitioners further representation was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and he was awarded with punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years. Petitioner was also directed to plant 8 saplings in the Armed Reserve campus. (iii) In the suo-motu review of the punishment, the Commr.of Police modified the punishment of postponement of increment awarded to the Petitioner and enhanced to that of dismissal from service by an order dated 110. 2005, challenging the enhancement of penalty of "Dismissal from service" Petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Refuting averments in the writ petition, Respondent filed counter contending that enquiry was held in compliance with principles of natural justice and the punishment was awarded to the Petitioner as per Rule 15 A of TNPSS (D&A) Rules. 4. When the advocates were on boycott, Petitioner himself argued the matter. Petitioner has contended that he was not available on 16.02.2005 and the charges framed against him that he has cut four trees within mounted Branch premises is false. 5. After advocates resumed work I have also heard the arguments of Mr.C.Veerakathiravan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 4. When the advocates were on boycott, Petitioner himself argued the matter. Petitioner has contended that he was not available on 16.02.2005 and the charges framed against him that he has cut four trees within mounted Branch premises is false. 5. After advocates resumed work I have also heard the arguments of Mr.C.Veerakathiravan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that Petitioner has cut the trees with a bonafide intention to clear the drainage and while so, punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the proved charges. It was further submitted that punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years and further direction to plant 8 saplings within the Armed Reserve premises was already implemented and while so the Respondents ought not to have enhanced the punishment. 6. Learned Addl.Govt.Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar, submitted that without obtaining permission from his superiors Petitioner arranged to cut the trees and Petitioner cut the trees through private personnel and had disobeyed the orders of the superiors. Learned Addl.Govt.Pleader would further submit that the act of Petitioner is high handed and such delinquency should be dealt with firm hands. 7. The charge against Petitioner is that he has cut the trees with the assistance of private personnel without obtaining prior permission from the superiors. Though Petitioner has denied his presence on 14.02.2005 to 16.02.2005, prosecution has adduced evidence to substantiate charge of alleged cutting of trees by the Petitioner. In his evidence PW5-Majid who runs firewood shop stated that he was called for by the delinquent and asked to cut and remove the trees worth Rs.2000/- and after cutting the trees he had taken the cut trees to his firewood shop and sold for Rs.2500/-. PW6-Mr.K.Udhayakumar - Sub Inspector of Police, PW-7 Mr.Panchatcharam – Inspector of Police, Pw8-Assistant Commissioner of Police have spoken in one voice about cutting of trees by the delinquent. Based on evidence of witnesses, Enquiry Officer held the delinquent responsible for cutting all four trees. However Enquiry Officer has found that Petitioner has not received any monetary benefit for the trees cut and removed. Having regard to proved charge and that there was no misappropriation of the money, the Deputy Commissioner of Police awarded punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. 8. However Enquiry Officer has found that Petitioner has not received any monetary benefit for the trees cut and removed. Having regard to proved charge and that there was no misappropriation of the money, the Deputy Commissioner of Police awarded punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect. 8. Under Rule 15 A(iii) of TNPSS (D&A) Rules, Commissioner of Police is empowered to conduct suo-motu review of the punishment after the appeal time is over. In the suomotu review, Commissioner of Police has enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service. 9. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that Petitioner has cut the tress with a bonafide intention to clear the drainage and only to protect the compound wall and while so punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon the Petitioner is highly disproportionate. 10. Placing reliance upon 1991 (4) SCC 54 (State of Punjab & Others Vs.Ram Singh) the Petitioner being part of disciplinary force was expected to maintain strict discipline and the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority cannot be said to be disproportionate. 11. If the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority is one, which, having regard to the rules, could be imposed for the proved misconduct, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of Constitution will not go into the sufficiency or otherwise of the penalty awarded by the authority. However, there are exceptions to the rule: (i) where the penalty imposed is malafide or so disproportionate as to shock of conscience of the Court; (ii) where the penalty imposed falls under Cl. (1) of the second proviso to Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. 12. In B.C. Chaturvedi V.Union of India [1996 I LLJ 1231], the Supreme Court, after considering the various issues and case laws and the scope of interference in the punishment imposed by the authorities, has held as follows :- "A review of the above legal position would establish that the Disciplinary Authority, and on appeal the Appellate Authority, being fact-finding authorities, have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment, keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment, keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof". 13. The imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion of Disciplinary Authority. Power under Article 226 is one of the judicial review. It is not an appeal from a decision. If misconduct is established normally the court would not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the court. 14. The scope of interference with quantum of punishment has been the subject matter of various decisions of the Supreme Court. Referring to various decisions in 2007(2) MLJ 278(SC) [Union of India and Ors. v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari], the Supreme Court has held as follows :- "15. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesburys the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. 16. To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations, it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 17. Further to shorten litigations, it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 17. The above position was recently reiterated in Union of India and another v. K.G.Soni [ 2006(6) Supreme 389 : 2006 III LLJ 802b (SC)] following Domoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and ors. v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 : 2005(10) SCC 84 : 2005 I LLJ 730 (SC)." 15. In the present case, there is no denying that trees were cut and removed with the assistance of the Petitioner there was no evidence to show that the Petitioner had received any monetary benefit or misappropriation of the amount. Having regard to the nature of the charges the interest of justice would be met if original punishment imposed upon the Petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Police i.e. punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect is restored setting aside the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner in the suo-motu review. 16. In the result, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Police is set aside and this writ petition is partly allowed. The order of Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 07.09.2005 imposed upon the Petitioner is restored. "Petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. "The period from 110. 2005 till the date of reinstatement shall be considered as leave on loss of pay. However the aforesaid period shall be taken into account for continuity of service, pension and other attendant benefits.