JUDGMENT 1. - This petition for writ is preferred to question validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 25.3.2011, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the respondent-Government servant was subjected to a disciplinary action as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 under a memorandum dated 25.11.2008. As per the statement of allegation, the respondent-Government servant violated Rule 3 (1) (i) and Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Central Civil Service (conduct rules), 1964 as he withheld interest payable under monthly investment scheme to an account holders and also that he delayed payment of Kisan Vikas Patra to one Smt. Pinki, Dwarka Das and Mitha Lal. After holding regular inquiry, the disciplinary authority under an order dated 30.01.2009/05.02.2009 exonerated the respondent Government servant from allegation No. 1, however, found him guilty for commission of mis conduct pertaining to allegation No. 2. The Disciplinary Authority accordingly imposed a minor punishment, that is withholding of one annual grade increment for a term of two years. 2. The Tribunal, vide the judgment impugned while accepting the finding given by the disciplinary authority reduced penalty period for a term of 16 months instead of two years. At the same time, the Tribunal also directed to disciplinary authority to re-consider the entire matter afresh for the reasons given in para 1 of the order itself. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after holding the respondent Government servant guilty for a mis conduct, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to interfere with the punishment awarded, especially in the circumstance, that the punishment given is a minor punishment and that too of minimum nature. 4. An effort is made by learned counsel for the respondent Government Servant to defend the order impugned with assertion that the act of Government servant is of very minor nature and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly exercised its authority and directed the disciplinary authority to re consider the entire issue. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Tribunal while exercising power under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is having an authority to alter, modify and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law in service matter pertaining to a Government servant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The Tribunal while exercising power under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is having an authority to alter, modify and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law in service matter pertaining to a Government servant. Such power is required to be exercised only for just and valid reasons and within the statutory limits. The Tribunal is not vested with any discretionary power to interfere with an order, that is otherwise not illegal. No interference can be made in an order pertaining to disciplinary action, if that is in accordance with law. With quantum of punishment, interference is permissible, only if that is disproportionate to the delinquency and that is shockingly arbitrary and is also not executable for certain valid reasons. No such circumstance exists in the present case. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority imposed a minimum punishment available with him. As such, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment and further to direct the disciplinary authority to re-consider the entire action. The order impugned thus, is bad on its face. Accordingly, the petition for writ is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 25.3.2011 is quashed. The original application preferred by the respondent-Government servant stands dismissed.Petition Allowed. *******