ORDER B. Manohar, J.— The Petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order dated 29-8-2006 made in O.A. No. 347/2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Branch, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') wherein the CAT quashed the order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the Reviewing Authority, the first Petitioner herein and restore the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the second Petitioner herein has filed this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Applicant in O.A. No. 347/2005 approached the CAT challenging the order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the first Petitioner inter alia contending that he was initially appointed as a Postal Assistant on 10-6-1983 subsequently, he was promoted as a Senior Clerk on 30-4-1995. The Disciplinary Proceedings was initiated against him for certain misconduct and article of charges dated 4-9-2002 was issued alleging violation of provision of Rule 3(1)(i)(ii) and (iii) of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1964. The article of charges reads as under: ARTICLE - 1 That the said Sri. Sopan Madari while working as PA at R.T. Nagar HO for the period from December 1998 to December 2001 had converted the NSC counter transactions into that of agents transactions thereby the department sustained the loss of such commission paid. Thus the official alleged to have violated the instructions issued from Dte. Vide P.O. Circular No. 66 dated 04-03-1960 thus exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty as required by him under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-11 That the said Sri. Sopan Madari while officiating as SPM. RMV Extn. II Stage P.O. for the period from 10-05-2002 to 13-05-2002 had objected for opening of new RD accounts and also behaved rudely with the MPKBY agent Smt. Nagabhushamamma thus alleged to have exhibited lack of devotion to duty and acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Government servant as required by him under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE - III That the said Sri. Sopan Madari while working as PA, RMV Extn., PO on 17-05-2002 was served with the Senior Superintendent of Police Offices, Bangalore East Division, Bangalore 560 025 Memo No. F/Misc/digs/02-03 dated 17.05.2002 suspending him on the afternoon of 17.05.2002 in connection with an enquiry in to the alleged complaint against Sri. Sopan Madari and the said Sri. Sopan Madari while working as PA, RMV Extn., PO on 17-05-2002 was served with the Senior Superintendent of Police Offices, Bangalore East Division, Bangalore 560 025 Memo No. F/Misc/digs/02-03 dated 17.05.2002 suspending him on the afternoon of 17.05.2002 in connection with an enquiry in to the alleged complaint against Sri. Sopan Madari and the said Sri. Sopan Madari acknowledged the Memo of suspension but refused to sign the charge report offered by ASP, Bangalore east Sub-Division – 1, Bangalore -560 016. Therefore, it is alleged that the said Sri. Sopan Madari by refusing to sign the charge reports in connection with his suspension with the case disobeyed the orders of ASP, BG East Sub-Division I and thus acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Government servant as required by him under the provisions of Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules. 1954. 3. The Disciplinary Authority appointed P. Damodara Bhat as an Enquiry Officer and Sri. T.S. Aswathnarayana as Presenting Officer. The Applicant has not filed any objections to the said article of charges. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted enquiry report on 16-1-2004 holding that all the three charges levelled against, the Applicant are proved. The enquiry report was forwarded to the Applicant to submit his representation. The Applicant submitted his representation on 9-2-2004. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service by its order dated 26-3-2004. The Applicant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 26-3-2004 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after considering the appeal, by to order dated 27-12-2004 set aside the order of dismissal from the service holding that the punishment imposed is disproportionate. Further, held that charge No. 2 levelled against the Applicant has been withdrawn. Charges No land 3 are proved. Accordingly modified the penalty and ordered that, the pay of the Applicant be reduced by three stages from the present pay of Rs.5.375 to Rs.5,000/- in the scale of Rs.4500 - 125 7000 for a period of one year with cumulative effect. Charges No land 3 are proved. Accordingly modified the penalty and ordered that, the pay of the Applicant be reduced by three stages from the present pay of Rs.5.375 to Rs.5,000/- in the scale of Rs.4500 - 125 7000 for a period of one year with cumulative effect. However, the Chief Post Master General, invoking his power under Rule 29(1) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1985 suo moto reviewed the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority holding that the penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority is not commensurate with the gravity of the offences and proposed to revise the penalty to that of dismissal from service and directed the Applicant to file his written representation. 4. The Revisional Authority by its order dated 27-4-2005 revised the order passed by the Appellate Authority ordering compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect. The Applicant, being aggrieved by the order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the Revisional Authority, approached the CAT, Bangalore Branch. Bangalore challenging the same contending that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is contrary to law and illegal. Further contended that when the Appellate Authority after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, the Revisional Authority has no power to review the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the scope of review is limited and sought for setting aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority. 5. The CAT, after considering the arguments addressed by the parties, by its order impugned in the writ petition dated 19-8-2006 allowed the O.A. and set aside the order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the Revisional Authority and confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 27-12-2004 imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by three stages. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CAT, the Appellant preferred this writ petition. 6. Sri. C. Shashikanth, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the order passed by the CAT is contrary to law. The charges levelled against the Respondent are with regard to conversion of NSC counter transaction into the Agent transaction thereby sustained loss to the Department Further, he refused to receive the order, which is in serious nature. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the enquiry report passed the order of dismissal from service. The charges levelled against the Respondent are with regard to conversion of NSC counter transaction into the Agent transaction thereby sustained loss to the Department Further, he refused to receive the order, which is in serious nature. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the enquiry report passed the order of dismissal from service. The Appellate Authority without considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the Applicant set aside the said order imposing the penalty of reduction of the salary by three stages. However, the Revisional Authority found that the penalty imposed by the Appellate Authority is not commensurate with the gravity of the offences and accordingly revised the order and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The CAT ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Revisional Authority. Further, he also relied upon the judgment reported in 2003 SCO (L and S) 468 in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P.C. Kakkar and contended that the Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority shocks the conscious of the court. Further, in exceptional and rare cases, the court can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the 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. However, in the instant, case, the Tribunal ought, not to have interfered with the order passed by the Revisional Authority, solely on the ground that less punishment has been imposed on one B. Gangadharappa against whom similar article of charges has been issued. Hence, sought for setting aside the order passed by the CAT. 7. On the other hand, Sri Narayana Swamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent argued in support of the order passed by the CAT and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records. 9. It is not in dispute that the Respondent was working as Senior Clerk and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent for conversion of NSC counter transaction into the Agent transaction thereby causing loss to the Department. 9. It is not in dispute that the Respondent was working as Senior Clerk and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent for conversion of NSC counter transaction into the Agent transaction thereby causing loss to the Department. The similar article of charges has been issued against one B. Gangadharappa who is the Higher Officer working as DPM. in R.T. Nagar Head Office regarding conversion of NSC Counter transaction into the Agent transaction. The case of the Respondent is that on the instruction of B. Gangadharappa, DPM. R.T. Nagar Post Office, he has converted the NSC counter transaction into the Agent transaction. The other employees of the Post Office also deposed that at the instructions of B. Gangadharappa, DPM, the counter sale transaction of NSC was converted into Agent transaction. During the course of enquiry of the Respondent, it has come to light that on instruction of the Higher Officer B. Gangadharappa, who is working as DPM of R.T. Nagar Branch, converted the NSC Counter transaction into Agent transaction. However, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the minor penalty of Censure against B. Gangadharappa, against whom similar allegation has been made and at whose direction, the Respondent has acted. The specific case of the Respondent is that on the direction of B. Gangadharappa, he has converted the NSC counter transaction into Agent transaction. Against the Respondent, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is disproportionate and not commensurate with the gravity of the offences. The Appellate Authority on an appeal filed by the Respondent set aside the order of dismissal and imposed the penalty of reduction of salary of the Applicant by three stages. The Disciplinary Authority has not taken into consideration the punishment imposed on B. Gangadharappa against whom the similar article of charges has been issued. Against the said Gangaaharappa, the minor penalty has been imposed whereas for the very same offence which has been done at the instructions of said B. Gangadharappa, the order of dismissal has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority which is contrary to law. There cannot be any discrimination between the two officers who have committed similar offences. 10. The Appellate Authority on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, modified the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. There cannot be any discrimination between the two officers who have committed similar offences. 10. The Appellate Authority on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, modified the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Revisional Authority in a suo moto proceeding revised the order passed by the Appellate Authority and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, which is contrary to law. The Revisional Authority has also not taken into consideration the minor penalty imposed on B. Gangadharappa who is the higher officer and under whose instructions, the Respondent has converted the NSC counter transactions into Agent transaction. Further, the scope under the review is very limited. The Revisional Authority has only considered the irregularity in the procedure followed by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority has got wide power Lo re-examine and reappreciate the matter. When once the Appellate Authority reexamined the matter and modified the penalty from dismissal to reduction of pay by three stages, since the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the offences committed, the Revisional authority cannot interfere with the same. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2003 SCC (L and S) 468 referred to above has clearly held that if the punishment imposed is disproportionate, the Appellate Authority has got power to reconsider the same. In the instant case, the Appellate Authority found that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, hence modified the order and imposed alternative punishment. We find that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the gravity of offences. 11. We find there is no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the CAT in setting aside the order dated 27-4-2005 passed by the Revisional Authority confirming the order dated 27-12-2004 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the same. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER 12. The writ petition is dismissed.