JUDGMENT Petitioner, while working as Lines Inspector (O) GMT, Srinagar, Kashmir, and posted as S.D.E. (Cable Construc­tion) Srinagar, was proceeded against under Central Civil Service (Classifi­cation, Control and Appeal) Rules 1964, for alleged shortfall of stores in his charge. The Articles of Charges framed on 15.12.1998 against the petitioner read as under: Article-I Shortfall of stores as per physical verification of stores conducted by SDE (Cable Construction) Srinagar on 18.8.98 and 22.8.98. Article-II Shortfall of stores while handing over the stores charge by Sh. Hafizullah Mir, LI(O) to Sh. Ghulam Rasool Mattoo LI(O) from 18.8.1998 to 21.9.1998 Article-III Surplus store, which were found in excess while handing over charge of Sub-Divisional stores by Sh. Hafizullah Mir LI (O) to Sh. Ghulam Rasool Mattoo LI(O)from 18.8.1998 to 21.9.98. Article-IV Shortfall of serviceable and unservice­able stores found by the Committee framed by SDE (Cable Construction) on 22.9.98 for the store items not handed over by said Sh. Hafizullah Mir LI (O) to Sh. Ghulam Rasool Mattoo, LI(O) upto 21.9.1998. 2. The Inquiry Officer Shri N. D. Rather, DE(MM) GMT, Srinagar, after inquiry into matter, submitted his re­port to Disciplinary Authority Deputy General Manager (O&A) GMT Srinagar. The Authority on consideration of the inquiry report vide order No. DE(C&A)/Con/Disc/HUM dated 17.05.2004, im­posed following penalty on the peti­tioner: "It is therefore ordered that the pay of Sh. Hafizullah Mir LI (O) be re­duced by two stages from Rs. 4200/-in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of4 years with effect from 17.5.2004. It is further directed that Sh. Hafizullah LI(O) will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay". 3. The petitioner questioned the or­der dated 17.05.2004, in writ petition, which was registered as SWP No. 1549/ 2004, on the ground that the Inquiry Officer did not adhere to and follow the principles of natural justice while deal­ing with the matter; that the proceed­ings before the Inquiry Officer suffered from arbitrariness and that copies of documents/files referred to by the In­quiry Officer in his report were not sup­plied to petitioner so as to enable him to make an effective representation against the inquiry report and the con­clusions drawn. The Disciplinary Au­thority, it was pleaded, also failed to provide copy of the inquiry report and copies of the documents referred to in the report and failed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner requir­ing him to show cause against the pro­posed penalties. The inquiry report and the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority, it was contended, were viti­ated for non-observance of principles of natural justice and rules governing the field. The penalty imposed by the Dis­ciplinary Authority, according to the petitioner, was disproportionate and unreasonable and therefore liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner while arguing the matter confined chal­lenge to the order impugned in the pe­tition to the extent of penalties imposed on petitioner. In other words challenge to inquiry report and order of the Dis­ciplinary Authority on the ground of vio­lation of principle of natural justice and the prescribed procedure was not pressed by learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel instead placed exclusive focus on extent of the pen­alty imposed. It was contended that the penalty imposed was excessive, exor­bitant and not commensurate with the misconduct alleged against petitioner. 5. The Writ Court on going through the record expressed its inability to set-aside the inquiry report inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer while inquiring into the matter, had not recorded the rea­sons for holding the petitioner guilty of alleged misconduct. However, the Writ Court was of the opinion that the In­quiry Officer having regard to the fac­tual aspects of the case and the nature of allegations levelled against peti­tioner ought to have discussed the evi­dence recorded by it and should have given reasons/ grounds that led it to conclusions as regards guilt of peti­tioner. 6. The Writ Court found that the Dis­ciplinary Authority was not convinced that the alleged loss to the stores had occurred due to the negligence and misconduct of petitioner and that the loss was attributed to him because of his failure to make proper accounting of the stores in time, so that the short­ages and surplus were detected in time and loss to the Government property averted. The conclusions persuaded the Writ Court to hold that the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the alleged misconduct established against the petitioner. The Writ Court against the said backdrop upheld the penalty imposed to the extent of reduction of pay of petitioner by two stages from Rs. The conclusions persuaded the Writ Court to hold that the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the alleged misconduct established against the petitioner. The Writ Court against the said backdrop upheld the penalty imposed to the extent of reduction of pay of petitioner by two stages from Rs. 4200/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of 4 years with effect from 17.5.2004. Rest of the penalties disentitling the peti­tioner to earn increments of pay dur­ing the period of reduction and on ex­piry of this period the reduction was to have effect of postponing his future in­crements of pay, were set-aside. 7. The petitioner, convinced that the Writ Court order dated 8th February 2011, suffers from an error apparent on face of record, has come up with the Review Petition on hand. The petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 8th February 2011 in SWP No. 1549/2004 on the ground that the Writ Court while rendering the judgment under review did not deal with the principal argu­ment advanced by learned counsel for petitioner that in absence of charge the petitioner had failed to maintain proper accounting no penalty could have been awarded against him. It is further urged that once the Writ Court accepted the argument that the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the mis­conduct alleged against petitioner, the Writ Court ought not to have upheld the major penalty of reduction of pay of pe­titioner by two stages from Rs. 4200/-in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of 4 years with effect from 17.5.2004, as proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is pointed out that whenever Court is of the opinion that penalty imposed is not commensurate with the misconduct or is unjust or exhaustive, the Court is expected to award one of the lesser or lenient penalties awarded by the Dis­ciplinary Authority where more than one penalties are imposed. It is further submitted that the ultimate outcome of the Writ Court order does not reflect and convey the observation made by Writ Court that the penalty awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case was not commensurate implying thereby that the penalty was unjust, excessive and harsh. It is further submitted that the ultimate outcome of the Writ Court order does not reflect and convey the observation made by Writ Court that the penalty awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case was not commensurate implying thereby that the penalty was unjust, excessive and harsh. It is pleaded that both the errors i.e. one regarding fail­ure to deal with the principal argument of absence of charge and second main­taining the major penalty are errors apparent on the face of the record. 8. The respondents have not filed their objections possibly because of the observation made in order dated 18th October 2011 that as core issue that warranted consideration was whether the mistake was apparent on the face of record, for which objections were not required to be filed. 9. Heard and considered. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner dilating on the grounds urged in the Review Petition, insists that the errors identified in the Review Petition are apparent on the face of record and re­quired to be rectified in exercise of re­view powers under Order XLVII, Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 66, J&K High Court Rules. Mr. Beigh ap­pearing for respondents, to repel the case set up and arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner, ar­gues that in case the conclusions drawn by Writ Court while disposing of writ petition are not in conformity with law, the right course for petitioner is to question the Writ Court judgment in Letters Patent Appeal and that the pe­titioner cannot invoke powers under Order XLVII CPC read with Rule 66, J&K High Court Rules, as a camouflage to challenge the Writ Court judgment. It is insisted that none of the errors pro­jected in the Review Petition can be classified error apparent on face of the record as an effort is required to be made to dig into the record to identify the errors. 11. The ground urged by petitioner as regards failure on the part of Writ Court to deal with the primary argu­ment advanced in support of the case set up in the writ petition, is made oblivious to the stand taken by coun­sel for petitioner before the Writ Court. 11. The ground urged by petitioner as regards failure on the part of Writ Court to deal with the primary argu­ment advanced in support of the case set up in the writ petition, is made oblivious to the stand taken by coun­sel for petitioner before the Writ Court. It may be recalled that learned coun­sel for petitioner during the course of argument restricted his challenge to the impugned order dated 17.05.2004, whereby the penalties were imposed on the petitioner, to the extent of penal­ties quantum of punishments. The principal argument regarding omission of the Disciplinary Authority to frame charge as regards failure of petitioner to maintain proper accounting was withdrawn or not pressed by learned counsel for petitioner in view of his exclusive focus on the ground regard­ing extent and quantum of punish­ment. The petitioner, therefore, can­not be heard saying that the Writ Court failed to deal with his principal argu­ment that Disciplinary Authority omit­ted to frame charge as regards failure of petitioner to maintain proper ac­counting and such failure constituted error apparent on the face of record. In the said background the law laid down in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v. Union of India ( AIR 2005 SC 2087 ) cannot be of any help to the petitioner. So viewed ground No. 1 urged in support of the Review Petition is not available to the petitioner for the simple reason that once learned counsel did not press the principal argument, the Writ Court was not at all expected to deal with it or re­turn a finding on the issue. 12. There is, however, substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and to the said extent merit in the Review Peti­tion that the final outcome of the writ petition as regards extent and quantum of penalty, does not reflect and repre­sent the conclusions drawn by the Writ Court on the question whether the pen­alty imposed was commensurate with misconduct proved against petitioner. The Writ Court, pointed out that Disci­plinary Authority was not itself con­vinced that the alleged loss to the stores had occurred due to negligence of peti­tioner and to support the conclusion referred to the following observation of the Disciplinary Authority:- "Now, undersigned after considering the Inquiry report, representation against the inquiry report and mate­rial on record that Sh. The Writ Court, pointed out that Disci­plinary Authority was not itself con­vinced that the alleged loss to the stores had occurred due to negligence of peti­tioner and to support the conclusion referred to the following observation of the Disciplinary Authority:- "Now, undersigned after considering the Inquiry report, representation against the inquiry report and mate­rial on record that Sh. Hafizullah Mir LI(O) working as store incharge is not fully responsible but he did not ac­count for the proper accounting of stores due to which, shortage and surplus of stores was detected and timely intimation to higher authority of misappropriation of stores could have averted the loss to the Govt. prop­erty". 13. The Writ Court thereafter con­cluded as under: These observations would show that the petitioner is not fully respon­sible and only the allegation imposed against him is that he did not account for due to which shortage was de­ducted. In these circumstances I find the penalty imposed does not commensu­rate with the alleged misconduct which stands established against the petitioner. 14. Once the Writ Court is convinced, in a case like one in hand, that the penalty imposed is not commensurate with the misconduct proved, the Court, if more than one penalties are im­posed, is expected to set- aside the major penalty and leave the petitioner to suffer the lesser or lenient penalty imposed. However, if the Disciplinary Authority has imposed only one pen­alty and the Writ Court finds such pen­alty to be not commensurate with the misconduct proved, it is to set-aside the penalty so imposed and substitute it by lesser or lenient penalty that can be imposed under rules or in alterna­tive remand the case to the Disciplin­ary Authority to award lesser penalty i.e. a penalty other than one imposed. 15. Let us again come to the facts of the case. The petitioner, as is clear now, has been imposed with following penalties: i. Pay of petitioner be reduced by two stages from Rs. 4200/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of 4 years w.e.f. 17.5.2004; ii. Petitioner will not earn incre­ments of pay during the period of 04 years w.e.f. 17.5.2004; iii. On the expiry of reduction period (04 years w.e.f. 17.5.2004) the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 16. 4200/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of 4 years w.e.f. 17.5.2004; ii. Petitioner will not earn incre­ments of pay during the period of 04 years w.e.f. 17.5.2004; iii. On the expiry of reduction period (04 years w.e.f. 17.5.2004) the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. 16. The penalty (i) is the major pen­alty and Writ Court has maintained the penalty (i) and set-aside other two pen­alties. The outcome of the writ petition therefore, is not in tune with the observations made by the Writ Court. 17. I am of the opinion that where conclusions drawn by a Court are not reflected in the operative part of the Order or such part of Order is in con­flict with the discussions made and conclusions arrived at by the Court, the Order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record within meaning of rules and that the said error can be corrected by making use of aforesaid provisions of law. 18. There, in the circumstance and for the discussion made, is an error apparent on the face of record that can be rectified by pressing into service provisions of Order XLVII CPC read with Rule 66, J&K High Court Rules. 19. For the aforementioned reasons the Review Petition is allowed and Writ Court judgment dated 8th February 2011 is reviewed and is set-aside to the extent it upholds and maintains major punishment of reduction of pay of peti­tioner be reduced by two stages from Rs. 4200/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000 for a period of 4 years w.e.f. 17.05.2004, and sets-aside the penalty where under the petitioner is not to earn the increments during the period of four years w.e.f. 17.05.2004. Resultantly, the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority where under petitioner is not to earn the increments during the period of four years w.e.f. 17.05.2004 is upheld and maintained. This order shall be read with and part of order dated 8th February 2011. 20. Disposed of. ___