JUDGMENT Petitioner was working as Junior Scientist in Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi. 2. Petitioner was charge sheeted on following charges:- 1. Act of Indiscipline Dr. K.S. Mohan was served the transfer letter no. 1077 dated 09.08.2007, which he received on 9th itself and signed the receipt register. Through this letter he was directed to join the duty at Z.R.S., Dumka. After going through the contents of the letter, in afternoon of 10.08.2007, he returned the office orders and struck down his signature from the receipt register of the Directorate of Research. This act amounts to indiscipline and tempering of the official records. 2. Act of disobedience Dr. Mohan was instructed to plan experiment to be conducted during Kharif 2005 as per decision taken during Z R E A C Kharif 2005. In review meeting held on 13.08.2005 at Z.R.S., Dumka, it was found that he did not conduct any experiment which amounts to negligence of duty and disobedience. He was asked to submit report for experiments within three days. His reply was unsatisfactory. 3. Willful absence from Duty Dr. Mohan was in habit of willful absence from Headquarter without permission of Associate Director, Z.R.S., Dumka, for which he has been asked explanation, vide 2321 dated 06.06.2005. 4. Misconduct Dr. Mohan accused Dr. G.S. Dubey, Director Research (The-then) for harassing him on the pretext that he was the sole person who spoiled his career by transferring him from Headquarter (Main Campus) to Z.R.S., Dumka by sending S.M.S. on his mobile. 3. Petitioner has submitted his reply to the charge sheet and has stated therein that having seen the place of posting i.e. Chianki, he was shocked as to why he was transferred to Chianki. Therefore, he could not join Chianki immediately. He has further stated in his reply to the show cause that he was not able to perform his experiments with Soils due to lack of facilities and malfunctioning of the old instruments. He has further stated that he never left the Headquarter without prior information and he had left the Headquarter for Ranchi only for medical treatment, since, he had to undergo the surgery of his Gall bladder to remove stone. It has further been stated in the reply to the show cause that he was mentally disturbed because of his unnecessary transfer to Chianki, keeping in mind his children's education. 4. It has further been stated in the reply to the show cause that he was mentally disturbed because of his unnecessary transfer to Chianki, keeping in mind his children's education. 4. As per explanation to Clause 13.9(3) of the Statute of the University, for imposing the minor penalties, it would be sufficient, if the officer concerned given an opportunity of explaining the charges against him and the explanation so submitted is taken into consideration before orders are passed and it would be no need to follow the procedure indicated in sub Clause 4 of Clause 13.9. 5. Since, in the present matter, show cause notice was given to the petitioner and he has impliedly admitted his fault, therefore, there was absolutely no need to hold detailed enquiry as provided under Clause 13.9 (4). 6. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein, the petitioner has himself admitted this fact that he could not conduct the experiments with soils because of faulty equipments and he was shocked to see the place of his posting at Chianki, and therefore, he asked his senior the reason for his transfer by ignoring his qualification, does not seem such a grave misconduct justifying the stoppage of two increments. 7. This Court is conscious about the fact while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not ordinarily disturb the finding of the facts recorded by the disciplinary authority. However, there is caveat to this principle that if this Court finds that punishment awarded to the employee, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is on the higher side, this Court may convert the severe punishment into the lighter one. Stoppage of two increments, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, seems to be totally unjustified. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, only the stoppage of one increment, that too without stoppage of efficiency bar, should have been imposed and is hereby imposed. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.