JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. By this writ petition, the Petitioner, an employee of the State Respondents, has challenged the disciplinary proceeding bearing No. F.4 (342)-PTG/89/5942 dated 16.09.1997 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) and also order dated 20th November, 1999 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, Respondent No. 2 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) wherein the disciplinary authority awarded penalty of withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect under Rule 11(iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 18th January, 2000 which was communicated by the Director, Printing and Stationary Department on 02.02.2000 vide Annexure E to the writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. MN Indu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. TD Majumdar, learned Addl. GA for the State. 3. Admittedly the Petitioner was appointed as LD Clerk under the Printing and Stationary Department of the Government of Tripura in the year 1979 and since then he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned and on such satisfactory performance the Petitioner was promoted to the post of UD Clerk. While the Petitioner was working as UD clerk a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the following charges: Article of Charges No. I That Sri Swapan Chakraborty while functioning in the Printing and Stationary Department, Agartala as UD Clerk during the period from 04.08.1988 has been absenting himself from duty unauthorizedly from 24.06.1997 to 25.06.1997 and 27.06.1997 to 28.06.1997 without prior permission/sanction of the competent authority which is most unbecoming and misdemeanor of a responsible Govt. servant like him and thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the provision of Rule 3 of the TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988. Article of charges No. II That Shri Swapan Chakraborty while functioning in the Printing and Stationary Department, Agartala as UD Clerk has left from his duty place on 08.06.1997, 13.06.1997, and 26.06.1997 at about 1.00 p.m. without prior permission/intimation of his section supervisor and did not turn up to his duty till 5.00 p.m. which is most unbecoming and misdemeanor being a Govt. servant like him and thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the Rule 3 of the TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988. servant like him and thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the Rule 3 of the TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988. Article of charges No. III That Shri Swapan Chakraborty while functioning in the Printing and Stationary Department, Agartala as LD Clerk/UD Clerk it reveals from the past service record that a tendency has developed for leaving office without prior permission/intimation to his section supervisor. In several occasions he was instructed verbally to rectify himself but failed. Considering his failures official memos has been issued to him bearing F.1 (92)-PTG/81/2421-22 dated 18.06.1998, No. F.U.O. 6978-PTG/93 dated 08.09.1993, No. F. 3 (87)-PTG/79/VOL-I/5867 dated 3rd November, 1988, No. F. 3 (87)-PTG/79/VOL-I/3141 dated 24.07.1988, No. F. 3 (87)-PTG/79/VOL-I/3158 dated 25.07.1990, No. F. 3 (87)-PTG/79/VOL-I/3189 dated 26.07.1990, No. F. 1 (73)- PTG/95/7378-80 dated 12.12.1995 and No. F. 4 (342)- PTG/89/61-62 dated 3rd January, 1997 considering all aspects and taking lenient view he has been warned number of times bearing No. F. 3 (87)-PTG/79/VOL-I/2955- 56 dated 02.07.1998, No. F. 3(87)-PTG/79/VOL-I/3152-54 dated 24.07.1990 and No. F. 1 (18)-PTG/90/3369 dated 09.08.1990 but he failed to improve the such habit and continuing such unbecoming activities which is most misdemeanor being a Govt. servant like him and thus he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty contravening the Rule 3 of the TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988. 4. After regular departmental inquiry the disciplinary authority of the Petitioner agreed with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and inflicted punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect under Rule 11(iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as out of the aforesaid charges only charge No. 3 has been proved. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment (Annexure C to the writ petition) of the disciplinary authority the Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 for setting aside/cancelling the impugned order of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Upon hearing the parties the Appellate Authority, i.e. Secretary to the government of Tripura, General Administration (PTG &STY) Department confirmed the order of punishment vide order dated 18th January, 2000. Hence, the writ petition. 5. Mr. Upon hearing the parties the Appellate Authority, i.e. Secretary to the government of Tripura, General Administration (PTG &STY) Department confirmed the order of punishment vide order dated 18th January, 2000. Hence, the writ petition. 5. Mr. Indu while urging for setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate authority as impugned in the instant writ petition would contend that the charge for which the Petitioner is punished is not a specific one rather a vague one and according to him the charge does not even disclose the misconduct of the Petitioner. He further submitted that the allegation of unauthorized absence of the Petitioner as mentioned in the Article of Charges No. I and Article of Charges No. II were not proved and the punishment awarded for the third charge is disproportionate and a shocking one for which itself the impugned order of the disciplinary authority is liable to be quashed. More so, the appellate authority did not consider the case of the Petitioner, delinquent employee properly. Even no hearing was given to the Petitioner while the appeal was disposed of confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. He further contended that the High Court in any Writ petition has the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the delinquent employee in a disciplinary proceeding if the penalty shocks the conscience of the Court and in view of his aforesaid submission he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in UP State Road Transportation Corporation and Ors. v. Mahesh Kr. Mishra and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1151 . 6. Per contra, TD Majumdar while resisting the submission of Mr. Indu contended that a writ court cannot convert itself into an appellate court while hearing a petition for quashing the order of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority wherein the disciplinary authority awarded punishment and the appellate authority confirmed the same. He also contended that the High Court has no power to interfere with the order of punishment unless such punishment is awarded on the basis of no evidence. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Petitioner that the disciplinary authority awarded punishment on the basis of the findings of the inquiring authority without any evidence. He also contended that the High Court has no power to interfere with the order of punishment unless such punishment is awarded on the basis of no evidence. In the instant case, it is not the case of the Petitioner that the disciplinary authority awarded punishment on the basis of the findings of the inquiring authority without any evidence. In the instant case, the Petitioner has challenged only the quantum of punishment and not the procedure followed by the authority and unless there is any procedural irregularity in the disciplinary proceeding the Court should not interfere in a matter relating to departmental inquiry. He finally contended that out of the three charges if one is proved then that is enough for imposing punishment on a delinquent employee and the proportionality of punishment cannot be subject to judicial review unless the order of punishment shocks the conscience of the Court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority took a lenient view while imposing the punishment upon the Petitioner and the learned appellate authority also took note of the same. He also urged that the entire writ petition can be disposed of only on the ground that though the Petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate authority but the appellate authority has not been made party to the instant writ petition and unless a person/authority is made party it cannot be criticized by a court of law. In support of his contention, inter alia, that proportionality of the punishment cannot be a subject matter of judicial review unless the order of punishment shocks the conscience of the court he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in P.D. Agrawal v. State bank of India and Ors.2006 AIR SC 2504. He again urged that in a disciplinary matter the court should not pass an order on the basis of sympathy and sentiment as discipline in a government establishment is a sine qua non. In support of his aforesaid contention he placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Chairman and MD, VSP and Ors. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu 2008 AIR SC 2244. 7. In UP State Road Transportation Corporation and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court noted, "Not only this Court but also the High Court can interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee if, that penalty, shocks the conscience of the court. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu 2008 AIR SC 2244. 7. In UP State Road Transportation Corporation and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court noted, "Not only this Court but also the High Court can interfere with the punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee if, that penalty, shocks the conscience of the court. The law, therefore, is not, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that the High Court can, in no circumstance, interfere with the quantum of the punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee after disciplinary proceedings." In the said law report the Apex Court also referred and relied upon an earlier decision of the Apex Court in Colour-Chem Ltd. v. A.L. Alaspurkar, (1998) 3 SCC 192 where the same proposition has been laid down by the Apex Court. 8. Neither Mr. TD Majumdar, nor this Court has any quarrel with the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court. There is no doubt that when punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of a Court of law, the Court can interfere with the said order of punishment but question is whether in the instant case the punishment awarded is higher in side for the misconduct proved by the disciplinary proceedings and if not whether the court can interfere with the said order of punishment. 9. In PD Agrawal (supra) the Apex Court noted that the question in regard to jurisdiction of the court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited while exercising the writ jurisdiction, only in mere exceptional cases, can interfere with the punishment. It is also noted that charge II as levelled against the Appellant of that case constituted an independent charge, as commission of one misconduct has nothing to do with the commission of similar nature of misconduct on all other occasions and the said charge was, therefore, severable. 10. In the instant case also the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 are severable than the charge No. 3 which was proved and if one charge is proved that is enough for awarding punishment. 11. In Chairman and MD, VSP and Ors. 10. In the instant case also the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 are severable than the charge No. 3 which was proved and if one charge is proved that is enough for awarding punishment. 11. In Chairman and MD, VSP and Ors. (supra) the Apex Court in para 16 & 17 noted, " a subsequent explanation before another authority, which had not been pleaded in the departmental proceedings, cannot by itself be a ground to hold that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with in the disciplinary proceedings. The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well known factors. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments." It is also noted that "Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The Superior Courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved." 12. In the instant case Mr. Indu raised the question, inter alia, that the Petitioner was not heard by the appellate authority while confirming the order of disciplinary authority in appeal. For the first time without making party to the appellate authority, Mr. Indu submits that the State has been made party and so it is not necessary to make party the Secretary to the Government of Triupra, separately as the appellate authority. 13. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention of Mr. Indu on the ground that the appellate authority did not exercise his administrative power but acted as an appellate authority and exercised his statutory power. Therefore, the allegation made against him without making him party is unsustainable. 14. This Court has gone through the impugned orders i.e. the order of the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority and also the records available. Therefore, the allegation made against him without making him party is unsustainable. 14. This Court has gone through the impugned orders i.e. the order of the disciplinary authority and the order of the appellate authority and also the records available. It is evident from the record that there was no procedural irregularity committed by the disciplinary authority either at the time of inquiry or at the time of passing the impugned order and it can also not be said that the imposed punishment is higher in side for a misconduct like habitual leaving the offence unauthorizedly time and again for which the Petitioner was given warning from time to time since 1988 onwards. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that before leveling the charges against him for misconduct he was not given any warning either by way of show cause or information. Power of writ court relating to a disciplinary proceeding is a limited one and the Court cannot re-appreciate either the evidence or can re-examine the witnesses like the appellate authority. 15. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition is devoid of merit. Hence, the same is dismissed. 16. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed