Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition is filed against the award. When the first respondent K.Egambaram was working in the petitioner Electricity Board as Commercial Inspector he said to have committed certain acts of misconduct, namely violation of standing order under Rule 30 Sub clause (iv)Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Boards property or business. Therefore, charge memo dated 17.08.1996 was issued to the first respondent calling upon him to submit his explanation. On submission of the explanation, being dissatisfied with the explanation offered by the first respondent K.Egambaram, the petitioner Electricity Board appointed the Assistant Executive Engineer/Operation and Maintenance/South/Cheyyar as enquiry officer, who after giving reasonable opportunity submitted his report holding that the charge framed against the first respondent was proved. 2. The charge memo against the first respondent was that he had demanded a sum of Rs.350/- from one Velayudam for preparing estimate for supply of Electricity service connection. After submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner Electricity Board again issued a second show cause notice dated 04.03.1997 enclosing copy of the findings of the enquiry officer calling upon the workman to submit his explanation and after receiving the second show cause notice the first respondent also submitted his reply and after careful consideration of the entire records, the petitioner vide memo dated 21.04.1997, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, though an appeal provision was available in the standing order, the first respondent/workman did not file an appeal but raised a dispute before the Inspector of Labour and the conciliation proceedings having ended in failure, the Inspector of Labour submitted his report to the Government in his proceedings dated 02.02.1998. Following the failure report submitted by the conciliation officer, the Government in G.O.(D)No.923 Labour and Employment Department dated 18.11.1998 referred the dispute to the second respondent/Labour Court and thereafter the Labour Court took up the matter for consideration in ID.No.361/1998. 3. After hearing both sides, the learned Labour Court while agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, yet modified the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect into one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 3. After hearing both sides, the learned Labour Court while agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, yet modified the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect into one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the award in I.D.No.361/1998, the petitioner Electricity Board has filed the present writ petition challenging the reasonings given by the Labour Court for modification of punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect into one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court having agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer that the charge of demand of bribe levelled against the first respondent was found established, the Labour Court ought not to have disturbed the punishment by interfering with the quantum of punishment. On that basis it was further contended that the Labour Court, while accepting the findings of the enquiry officer proving the guilt of the first respondent even without furnishing any single reason has modified the punishment, which is not sustainable in law. On that basis prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed in I.D.No.361/1998. 5. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the Labour Court, while exercising power under section 11-A of the I.D. Act, though has aggreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, about the guilt of the workman/first respondent herein, to meet the ends of justice, and also for the purpose of enabling the poor workmen to get pension and other benefits, rightly interfered with the quantum of punishment, that too, only modifying the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect into one of stoppage of increment for two years without cumulative effect. Since, the Labour Court has only modified the punishment. This court need not interfere with the same. 6. Heard parties on both sides. 7. Admittedly, the first respondent workmen, while working as Commercial Inspector, suffered disciplinary proceedings at the hands of the Electricity Board. The Electricity Board found the charge made against the petitioner that he demanded a bribe for a sum of Rs.350/- from one Velayudam for preparing estimate for supply of Electricity service connection, was found proved by the enquiry officer and the same was also accepted by the learned Labour Court. The Electricity Board found the charge made against the petitioner that he demanded a bribe for a sum of Rs.350/- from one Velayudam for preparing estimate for supply of Electricity service connection, was found proved by the enquiry officer and the same was also accepted by the learned Labour Court. While so, as against the settled legal position that neither the High Court nor tribunal shall interfere with the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court erroneously interfered with the quantum of punishment. 8. Normally the Tribunal and the High Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry or by the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions, which are perverse and those which are not. If there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the findings and conclusions would not be interfered with. But in the present case, the Labour Court, while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the charge of demand of bribe was found established, should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. The Honble Apex Court also has held in the case of Devendra Swamy Vs. Karnataka state Road Transport Corporation, reported in JT 2001 10 SCC 33 has that unless punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charge which has been proved, the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority should not be interfered in exercise of power of judicial review. 9. Therefore, the interference made by the Labour Court in the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority being totally uncalled for in view of the settled legal position, this court finds that the Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the punishment, which is not permissible in law and, therefore the impugned order is set aside and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority is restored. The writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned order passed in ID.No.361/1998. No costs.