Sunil Ambwani and Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, JJ.- We have heard Shrl Amit Sinha appearing for the Union of India. Shri Kailash Nath Yadav appears for Shri Ram Surat-respondent No. 1. 2. The Union of India and the postal authorities are aggrieved by the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 3.1.2006 in Original Application No. 896 of 2000, Ram Surat v. Union of India and others, in which a direction was given to the petitioners to appoint the applicant-respondent No. 1 as Extra Departmental Agent in Bisunpur, district Jaunpur and to accommodate Shri Rama Kant-respondent No. 4 in any other post. The offer of appointment of the applicant was to be given within two months. The petitioners did not challenge the judgment. Shri Rama Kant challenged the judgment in Writ Petition No. 10605 of 2006, which was dismissed on 11.8.2008 on the ground that Shri Rama Kant-the petitioner had taken employment elsewhere and that the prayers made in the writ petition had become infructuous. The interim order dated 22.2.2006 was discharged. 3. Shri Ram Surat thereafter filed a contempt petition in which a defence was taken by the petitioners, that his mark sheet of Class-VIII sent subsequently for verification was found forged. The Tribunal has, in paragraph-5 of its order dated 17.1.2011, recorded an opinion, that there is only an error in the mark sheet. The applicant secured 471 marks out of 650, and hence percentage comes to 62.8%. The objections taken by the respondents in the Tribunal that 471 marks have to be calculated out of 750 and not out of 650, could be a mistake. The marks have to be calculated out of the total 650 as given in the mark sheet. The Principal of the School has not alleged that applicant was responsible for showing 650 marks in the marks sheet. 4. The Union of India has not challenged the order passed in the contempt petition by which an opportunity has been given to the petitioners to comply with the order dated 3.1.2006. 5. So far as this writ petition is concerned, we are not satisfied that the petitioners have explained the delay of four years and 317 days in filing the writ petition. It will be open to the petitioners either to comply with the order of the Tribunal or to challenge the order passed in the contempt petition as the case may be. It will be open to the petitioners either to comply with the order of the Tribunal or to challenge the order passed in the contempt petition as the case may be. The Tribunal must ensure that a person, who is alleged to have forged the mark sheet, (a fact discovered on verification, subsequent to the judgment) does not secure employment, in the anxiety of compliance of its orders. The Tribunal, even in contempt case can record findings if there is any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. The writ petition is dismissed. disciplinary authority alongwith the report of the enquiry officer. We agree with the fact that there is no reflection in the report of the enquiry officer that there was any pecuniary loss. On the contrary it was held that there was lapse or negligence on the part of the delinquent officer in respect of both the charges, Le., Article Nos. 1 and 4. Against this background, we are of the view that either disciplinary authority will accept the report of the enquiry officer in toto or he will disagree and upon service of second show cause and obtaining reply pass a fresh order with reasons giving opportunity of hearing. In this case, the disciplinary authority has accepted the report in one hand by saying that the enquiry officer has assessed all the documentary evidences and witnesses in a judicious manner particularly in respect of the Article Nos. I and IV, but on the other hand, imposed the penalty of Rs. 1,99,897 under Regulation 56 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971. Both the stands are self contradictory in nature. Therefore, it is a clear case of disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Consequently, imposition of penalty of recovery of Rs. 1,99,897 without any pecuniary loss to the appellant-Corporation is colourable exercise of power. That apart, the respondent-writ petitioner has suffered two punishments ; (i) reversion, and (ii) compulsory retirement. Even thereafter imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs. 1,99,897 without any pecuniary loss, as established before the enquiry officer and as accepted by the disciplinary authority as judicious, is not only harsh but disproportionate in nature. 12. That apart, the respondent-writ petitioner has suffered two punishments ; (i) reversion, and (ii) compulsory retirement. Even thereafter imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs. 1,99,897 without any pecuniary loss, as established before the enquiry officer and as accepted by the disciplinary authority as judicious, is not only harsh but disproportionate in nature. 12. It is to be remembered that principle of unjust enrichment is not required to be looked from the angle of fiscal disputes but from the angle of other disputes like a dispute between master and servant, who is not in equal bargaining position with the other, particularly when the Government or Governmental bodies claim to be model employer. 13. In further, rights and duties are occupying two distinct places. Definitely one can be required to be punished for just cause but not for unjust cause. It is also to be seen from the social point of view. Due to commercial or economical globalization, we cannot forget the preamble of the Constitution. This is the case where imposition of penalty is absolutely unjusticiable on the part of the appellant and as such, the amount of penalty, which has been recovered by the appellant from the respondent-writ petitioner, is required to be returned to the respondent-writ petitioner within a period of one month from this date, failing which it will carry simple interest @ 6% per annum till the date of actual payment. Accordingly, the special appeal is disposed of, however, without imposing any cost. Interim order, if any, is merged with the final order. Ashok Srivastava, J.-I agree.