Judgment :- The present writ petition is directed against the award passed by the labour Court in I.D.No.400/2000, dated 14.02.2002. 2. While C.Sundaram, Assessor was working under the control of the petitioners Board, the said assessor was attached to Periyakundaram Section and performing the assessment of current consumption charges for the service connection 188 and said to have committed certain acts of misconduct. Because, the said assessor used to charge the consumption without visiting the respective houses and taking the correct meter reading and thereby, has failed to discharge his duties properly. He was charge sheeted for his laziness, lethargy and unfaithful performance of duties. After receiving show cause notice as well as charge sheet alleging serious misconduct committed by Sundaram, the said Sundaram did not submit his explanation. Further, in order to give him reasonable opportunity to defend the case, a domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer, after evaluating the evidence placed before him, proceeded exparte and after completion of the enquiry, submitted his report. The disciplinary authority, having seen the serious nature of charges levelled against the said Sundaram, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the Union, on behalf of the said Sundaram, raised an industrial disputes before the labour Court. The labour Court without considering the facts that the delinquent employee Sundaram without visiting an individual house to find out the correct consumption of electrical energy, had allowed the claim petition by setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when delinquent employee Sundaram has not given clear cut meter reading of various consumption in their consumer cards, without visiting to the meter spot, for noting the correct meter reading. For instance, if a consumer consumes 285 units, without visiting the meter spot, he would record his consumption of electrical units as only 66 units. No counter was filed by the respondent. For instance, if a consumer consumes 285 units, without visiting the meter spot, he would record his consumption of electrical units as only 66 units. No counter was filed by the respondent. One of the consumer card in S.C.No.188 showing the meter reading as recorded by the respondent is given as follows:- Date of Meter reading Meter Reading Unit of consumption 12.10.95 00825 110 20.12.95 00900 75 17.02.96 00930 30 17.04.96 00960 30 19.06.96 00970 10 20.08.96 00990 20 18.10.96 01010 20 20.12.96 01040 30 21.02.97 01070 30 21.04.97 01090 20 19.06.97 01110 20 19.08.97 01110 -- A perusal of the metre reading clearly shows that the said Sundaram has miserably failed to discharge his official duties and committed serious dereliction of duty. When the above said meter was removed on 18.10.1997 from the said service connection, it was found that the actual current consumption was 00891, namely, 66 units only, whereas the said Assessor had charged the consumer the consumption for 285 units without actually going to the meter spot and therefore, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority appears to be a minor punishment. It was also urged that the same should not have been interfered by the labour Court, but on the contrary, as the labour Court erroneously interfered with the quantum of punishment, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. When the delinquent employee was given a notice to explain his case properly, admittedly, the delinquent employee Sundaram has not availed of his chance by giving his explanation by denying charges levelled against him. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the said delinquent employee Sundaram did not turn up for enquiry, which is also indicating the fact that the delinquent employee had not shown any interest in denying the charges levelled against him. 5. In that view of this matter, the reasoning given by the labour court for setting aside the punishment of increment for one year, is totally unsustainable. It is also settled law that the Tribunal or High Court shall not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. In the present case, though the delinquent employee suffered grave charges at the hands of the petitioners Board, the punishment imposed was minor and therefore, the labour Court should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. In the present case, though the delinquent employee suffered grave charges at the hands of the petitioners Board, the punishment imposed was minor and therefore, the labour Court should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. The reasonings given by the labour court to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally unsustainable. Therefore, the award passed by the labour Court is set aside and accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. No Costs.