Judgment :- M. Venugopal, J. 1. The Appellant/Respondent has focused the present Writ Appeal as against the Order dated 19.04.2010 in W.P.No.45350 of 2006 passed by the Learned Single Judge. 2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing orders in W.P.No.45350 of 2006, on 19.04.2010 (filed by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner) has inter alia observed in Paragraph 7 that '... In this case, even though the Charge Memos were issued during February and April 1998, alleging misappropriation and embezzlements of funds and enquiry was conducted, just three months prior to the retirement of the Petitioner, he was removed from service. Furthermore, the punishment is a bit harsh and excessive, considering the nature of charges levelled against the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner had put in 28 years of service in the Department and considering the long number of years of service put in by the Petitioner, this Court has been inclined to modify the punishment into one of compulsory retirement so as to enable the Petitioner (Respondent), who is presently 67 years, to get some benefits' and consequently, allowed the Writ Petition without costs. 3. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant/Respondent submits that the Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate a pivotal fact that many complaints were received against the Respondent/Petitioner and the Joint Commissioner of the Appellant/HR & CE Department verified the records based on the reports furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of HR & CE Department and charges were framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 4. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant/Respondent contends that based on the report of the Enquiry Officer and other available materials on record, the Appellant/ Respondent came to the categorical conclusion that the irregularities committed by the Respondent/Petitioner were grave in nature and resultantly, awarded a punishment of removal from service. 5. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant/Respondent urges that the Respondent/Petitioner created fabricated vouchers towards 'Miscellaneous Expenses' and thereby, misappropriated the money belonging to the Temple. 6. The plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/Respondent is that the Respondent/Petitioner was provided with adequate opportunities to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer and he participated in the enquiry, which were not appreciated by the Learned Single Judge in a proper and real perspective, which culminated in miscarriage of Justice. 7. 6. The plea taken on behalf of the Appellant/Respondent is that the Respondent/Petitioner was provided with adequate opportunities to defend his case before the Enquiry Officer and he participated in the enquiry, which were not appreciated by the Learned Single Judge in a proper and real perspective, which culminated in miscarriage of Justice. 7. The Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant/Respondent submits before this Court that the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings that the charges levelled against the Respondent/Employee were serious in nature, since he misappropriated the funds keeping the amount as excess in his hands. 8. The prime submission of the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant/Respondent is that the Respondent/ Employee, being an Executive Officer, who was supposed to maintain and safeguard the funds of the Temple, misused his powers, contrary to the directions and circulars, issued by the Department. But, these factual aspects were not borne in mind by the Learned Single Judge, who ought not to have allowed the Writ Petition, by modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement. 9. It is the contention of the Appellant/Respondent that the past records of the Respondent/Employee were not good and on more than one occasion, he was suspended and imposed with the punishment for dereliction of duty. 10. Finally, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Appellant/Respondent projects an argument that just because, the Respondent/Employee had put in 28 years of service in the HR & CE Department, is not a ground to alter the punishment of removal from service imposed by the Appellant/Department in respect of the proved charges against the Respondent/Petitioner and in this regard, the Learned Single Judge has committed an error, which is liable to be set aside in the eye of Law. 11. Conversely, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Employee submits that the Learned Single Judge has rightly modified the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement in respect of the Respondent/Petitioner only with a view to enable him to get some monetary benefits, which need not be interfered with by this Court, sitting in Appellate jurisdiction. 12. It is not in dispute that as against the Respondent/ Petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted, in respect of certain irregularities committed by him, as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 12. It is not in dispute that as against the Respondent/ Petitioner, a domestic enquiry was conducted, in respect of certain irregularities committed by him, as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The Appellant/Respondent took into consideration the Enquiry Officer's report and ultimately, awarded the punishment of removal from service on the Respondent. 13. It is to be noted that the first charge levelled against the Respondent/Petitioner is that he had not paid the amounts in the Bank, but, effected several cash payments instead of cheque payments, contrary to the rules of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable and Endowments Act, 1959. Also that, when he was in possession of cash on hand, he withdrew the amount and misappropriated the same. Moreover, the Respondent/Employee for Rs.10,750/-fabricated vouchers in respect of 'Miscellaneous Expenses' and withdrew a further amount of Rs.6,900/-. 14. As a matter of fact, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that 'the Respondent/Petitioner was in possession of huge cash balance on hand and it was not known, how he withdrew the amount from the Bank and furnished false vouchers. Indeed, the Respondent/Petitioner took part in the domestic enquiry and in the domestic enquiry, he was provided with adequate opportunity to defend himself. Also that, the principles of natural Justice were adhered to in the domestic enquiry proceedings. 15. It is to be borne in mind that nine charges were framed against the Respondent/Employee through a Memo dated 27.02.1998.Later on 07.04.1998, in regard to three charges, a Memo was issued. In the Enquiry Officer's report, the Enquiry Officer had mentioned that 'it could be construed as misappropriation'. Hence, it is contended on behalf of the Respondent/Employee that the findings of the Enquiry Officer that 'it could be construed as misappropriation' was only a conjecture/presumption/surmise, which would not stand in the scrutiny of Law. 16. In the instant case on hand, before the Enquiry Officer, the Respondent/Petitioner had admitted that he kept the money with him and thereafter, he withdrew the money from the Bank towards 'Miscellaneous Expenses'. 17. 16. In the instant case on hand, before the Enquiry Officer, the Respondent/Petitioner had admitted that he kept the money with him and thereafter, he withdrew the money from the Bank towards 'Miscellaneous Expenses'. 17. A perusal of the domestic enquiry report of the Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore, addressed to the Appellant, in R.C.No.1735/98/A1, dated 28.01.1999, relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Respondent/Employee shows that nine charges were framed against the Respondent/Employee relating to keeping huge cash on hand during his tenure, especially, from 11.12.1996 to 11.12.1997, without depositing the daily receipts in the Bank Account as per Rules, directly, but utilised the amount for his own expenses. 18. The Enquiry Officer, in respect of Charge No.1, came to the conclusion that the Respondent/Employee (Executive Officer) remitted the Temple receipts in the Bank for a few days only and in other days, he paid directly without remitting into the Bank account and only during the audit, transaction was made with the Bank and in other days, the receipts were paid directly. Further, the Enquiry Officer opined that when huge cash balance was kept on hand by the Respondent/Employee, amounts were withdrawn from the Bank and the said amount was misappropriated by falsification of accounts and ultimately, held that the charge was proved, which amounted to criminal offence of defrauding Temple funds. 19. In respect of Charge No.2, in regard to the expenditures incurred, as per Cash Book of A/m.Chokkanathaswamy Temple, Ammapettai, Bhavani Taluk, for Voucher Nos.1,2,3,7,13,15,16,17,22, 23,29,36,37,49,50,52,55,56,59,63,64 and 65, vouchers were not produced for inspection and the amounts written without vouchers were misappropriated by him, the Enquiry Officer had come to the conclusion that the Respondent/Employee produced vouchers, for some items, without printed receipts, signatures obtained in the front page of vouchers for Paditharam, were shown to Audit and ultimately, it was held that the vouchers, without printed receipts, could not be accepted as proper and till four vouchers for Rs.6,392/- were not given and the charge was held to be proved. 20. 20. In respect of Charge No.3 that the Respondent/Employee made a name transferwithout departmental permission and thus took the power of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department, in his hand and illegally, made the name transfer, without proper permission of the Commissioner, it is to be pointed out that the Respondent/Employee admitted in his explanation that the name transfers were made without departmental permission and also that, he accepted that the Resolution of the Trust Board was not obtained and therefore, it was found that the name transfer was made in a arbitrary fashion and ultimately, the charge was found to be proved. 21. In regard to Charge No.4 that the Respondent/ Employee directly spent the amount (except Rs.389/- in 7/97) for the period from 7/95 to 11/95, from 1/97 to 12/97 in respect of A/m.Madheswarar and Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Kurichi, Bhavani Taluk, Erode District, without depositing the said amount into Bank, contrary to Rules framed as per 116(2)(x) and (xii), the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that during four years from 1994-1998, Bank account was operated only for four months and also, the Respondent/Employee admitted in his explanation that in other months, (more than 40 months) Temple receipts were spent directly without remitting into the Bank and finally, it was held that the said charge was proved. 22. As regards Charge No.5 that the receipts for Rs.35,000/- (As per Cash Book) remitted towards land tax for lands owned by Kurichi A/m.Madheswarar and Varadharaja Perumal Temple were not obtained, the Enquiry Officer ultimately found that unnecessarily Rs.35,000/- was paid without receipts on 24.03.1995, 29.04.1995, 14.09.1995 and 05.10.1995 and from the statement of the Respondent/Employee, it was presumed that he cheated the Department and unaccounted amount of Rs.10,000/-was misappropriated by the Executive Officer. Further, it was found that only part of the amount misappropriated between 24.03.1995 to 05.10.1995 were accounted for after 2 ½ years, there was loss of interest to the Temple and the incumbent tried to cheat the department by giving false information. Finally, it was held that the charge was proved. 23. Further, it was found that only part of the amount misappropriated between 24.03.1995 to 05.10.1995 were accounted for after 2 ½ years, there was loss of interest to the Temple and the incumbent tried to cheat the department by giving false information. Finally, it was held that the charge was proved. 23. In respect of Charge No.6 that in A/m.Madheswarar and Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Kurichi, Rs.750/- was spent towards Paditharam in which Rs.375/- for Perumal Temple, Rs.355/- for Sivan Temple, was written as expenditure and bills were prepared as the above items were purchased from K.R.Dhanam Store, Kurichi, etc., the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that as per the Act and Rules of the Department, it is proper to obtain printed receipts for expenditure and it was found that it was not acceptable that the bill was prepared in white papers with rubber stamp seal for small and heavy amount and pooja articles were purchased from small shops without license belongs to an Archagar, who has to receive pooja articles. Consequently, the explanation of the Respondent/Employee was not accepted and the charge was held to be proved against him. 24. In regard to Charge No.7 that the pay and medical allowance of Thiru.K.K.Chinnasamy Iyer, Archagar of A/m.Madheswarar Temple, Kurichi (Voucher No.76/28.02.97) and Archagar of A/M.Varadharaja Perumal Temple (Voucher No.75/28.02.97) enhanced as Rs.3,370/- and Rs.4,425/-were paid as arrears. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the Respondent/Employee could not implement the resolution of the Trust Board without sanction of Commissioner and ultimately, the charge was held to be proved against him. 25. In respect of Charge No.8 that the Kurichi, A/m.Madheswarar and Varadharaja Perumal Temple funds Rs.44,445/-was invested in Nerinjipettai Lakshmi Vilas Bank vide Investment Bond No.D.C.D.92/074939/23.09.95 and the maturity date of this investment was 21.10.2000 but, loan of Rs.25,000/-was obtained by the Respondent/Petitioner on the above investment (when the amount of Rs.27,846/-received in 1/96) without sanction of the Commissioner, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that when the Executive Officer (Respondent/Petitioner) was requested to submit his explanation regarding the payment of Departmental dues from the loan obtained in the investment instead of cash balance 19.11.96 without furnishing explanation and without furnishing for not obtaining Commissioner's permission, the explanation furnished by the Executive Officer was not accepted and the charge was held to be proved. 26. 26. In respect of Charge No.9 that as per DCB Register of A/m.Madheswarar and Varadharaja Perumal Temple, Kurichi, during the tenure of the Executive Officer, the Respondent/Employee without getting permission of the Commissioner effected name transfer and that amounts to taking the power of the Commissioner in his hand, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the necessary sanction should be obtained from the Commissioner by submitting the report stating the reasons for the name transfer and instead of it, as stated by the Respondent/Employee, name transfer was made by himself considering the situation, lease arrears and he himself accepted the charges, it was proved that without Commissioner's sanction arbitrarily alone. Finally, it was held that the charge was proved. 27. In respect of Additional Charge No.1, the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that before the date of suspension, the Respondent/Employee made alterations by indulging in an act of antedating in the Registers, in the name of Thiru.Sridhar, Tmt.Valliammal and Thiru. Gundapa Gounder. 28. In regard to the Additional Charge No.2, it was proved that after inspection of the Assistant Commissioner, Erode, by making alterations in the Temple DCB Register, the name transfer were registered. In respect of Additional Charge No.3, it was proved that there was insufficient bank balance, Cheque issued towards payment of departmental dues, by stating concocted reasons and cheated the department etc. 29. Based on the proved charges, the Appellant/Respondent opined that if the Respondent/Employee was allowed to continue in service, the same would be detrimental to the interest of the public and the Temple and finally, imposed the punishment of removing him from the service of the State Government as per Rule 8 (VII) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 30. The O.A.No.622 of 2000 filed by the Respondent/Employee on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, was later on converted as W.P.No.45350 of 2006 before this Court and ultimately, the Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by modifying the punishment to that of compulsory retirement as against the removal from service ordered by the Appellant/Respondent. 31. It is to be pointed out that awarding of punishment is within the domain of an Employer/Disciplinary Authority. It is not for a Court of Law to say that an employer should have punished a delinquent in a certain manner. 31. It is to be pointed out that awarding of punishment is within the domain of an Employer/Disciplinary Authority. It is not for a Court of Law to say that an employer should have punished a delinquent in a certain manner. As a matter of fact, the penalty awarded to a Delinquent/a Deviant employee must be commensurate with the seriousness of misconduct committed and any punishment disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct is clearly against the tenet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in our considered opinion. 32. In other words, the punishment imposed on an employee ought not to be grossly excessive, arbitrary and out of proportion to the misconducts committed. 33. Ordinarily, a Court of Law will not interfere with the order of Disciplinary Authority on punishment. In the present case on hand, it is evident that the charges and the additional charges levelled against the Respondent/Employee are all very grave in nature and they were found to be proved in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Department. Also, it comes to be known that the Respondent/Petitioner, from the date of his joining into service on 16.08.1971 in the Appellant/Department, committed similar offences continuously for several times, besides being placed under suspension and also that, he was awarded with the following punishments. “1. Placed under suspension vide Coimbatore, Assistant Commissioner's R.C.No.291/73, dated 13.2.1973. 2. Placed under suspension vide Erode Assistant Commissioner's R.C.No.1454/74, dated 26.05.1974. 3. Placed under suspension vide Erode Assistant Commissioner's R.C.No.6930/74, A.1, dated 10.10.1975. 4. Awarded stoppage of increment without cumulative effect vide Trichy Deputy Commissioner's Pro.D.Dis.No.22152/76, dated 7.6.1978. 5. Awarded stoppage of increment without cumulative effect vide Erode Assistant Commissioner's R.C.No.1454/74, A.1, dated 6.07.1975. 6. Placed under suspension vide Trichy, Deputy Commissioner's R.C.No.14213/82, dated 8.10.1992. 7. Placed under suspension vide Coimbatore Deputy Commissioner's R.C.No.2518/88, A.1, dated 26.02.1988. 8. Placed under suspension vide Coimbatore Deputy Commissioner's Pro.R.C.No.17960/92, A.1, dated 5.12.1992 and two increments stopped with cumulative effect on 20.09.1993. 9. Awarded stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect vide Erode Assistant Commissioner's R.C.No.820/92, A.2, dated 30.06.1994. 10. Awarded stoppage of two increments vide Mayiladuthurai Deputy Commissioner's R.C.No.427/84, A.1, dated 30.06.1996. 11. Erode Assistant Commissioner has ordered to recover Rs.1000/- from his salary for non-handing over of Rale cycle belongs to the temple in R.C.No.8216/92, A.2, dated 30.06.1994. 12. Awarded stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect vide Erode Assistant Commissioner's R.C.No.820/92, A.2, dated 30.06.1994. 10. Awarded stoppage of two increments vide Mayiladuthurai Deputy Commissioner's R.C.No.427/84, A.1, dated 30.06.1996. 11. Erode Assistant Commissioner has ordered to recover Rs.1000/- from his salary for non-handing over of Rale cycle belongs to the temple in R.C.No.8216/92, A.2, dated 30.06.1994. 12. Charges have been framed under Section 17(b) of CCC Rules by the Joint Commissioner, Coimbatore for mismanagement of A/m.Madheswarar Temple, Kurichi, Bhavani Taluk. Final order was passed vide Commissioner's Pro.R.C.No.73567/96, L.4, after considering lengthy service of Executive officer, on compassionate grounds, charges were dropped with 'warning' to Executive Officer not to indulge in similar activities in future.” 34. Therefore, it is candidly clear that the Respondent/ Petitioner was an habitual delinquent every now and then. He had not mended himself, inspite of the fact, he was awarded with the punishments mentioned supra. Imposition of a just penalty proves the finesse of a Disciplinary Authority, where it is found missing definitely a Court of Law will interfere. While exercising the power of 'Judicial Review', a Court of Law cannot substitute its own view on penalty and impose some other penalty. However, if the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks one's conscience, then, a Court of Law may direct the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty awarded to the delinquent. In the alternative, a Court of Law in rare cases may award appropriate punishments by assigning cogent and convincing reasons thereto. The imposition of penalty is indeed, is the right of the Disciplinary Authority, commensurate with the magnitude and misconduct imputed and the evidence in support of thereof. Once an act of misappropriation is established whether it is small or huge amount, there is no question of showering misplaced sympathy and reinstating him in service. 35. A Court of Law can exercise its power on 'Judicial Review' in matters of disproportionate penalty. It is not essential that a Court should always order 'Reinstatement' but, it can substitute the penalty with its opinion, based on the facts and circumstances of a given case. 36. As a matter of policy, unless a Court of Law finds a punishment inflicted in shocking, it will not interfere. A Court of Law in exercising its power of Judicial Review is not an 'Appellate Forum'. 36. As a matter of policy, unless a Court of Law finds a punishment inflicted in shocking, it will not interfere. A Court of Law in exercising its power of Judicial Review is not an 'Appellate Forum'. Therefore, it is not permissible for it to reappraise the evidence to arrive at a separate conclusion. In law, a 'Judicial Review' is directed to the decision making process but, not to the decision. 37. To put it succinctly, the power of 'Judicial Review' is meant to ensure that a person receives a just and fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the Authority has reached its necessarily correct in the Court's eye. 38. On an overall assessment of rival contentions and taking note of the fact that the charges and additional charges levelled against the Petitioner/Respondent were proved in the 'Domestic Enquiry', conducted by the Appellant/Department in respect of the Respondent/Employee and also, considering the fact that the Respondent/Petitioner's past record is also not an impeccable one (free from stains), this Court comes to an irresistible conclusion that the punishment of removal from service passed by the Appellant/Appellate Authority as per proceedings in Pro.R.C.No.18996/98/L.4,dated 10.12.1999, awarded to the Respondent/Employee, is not an exorbitant or an excessive one. Per contra, the same is just and proper in furtherance of substantial cause of Justice. Resultantly, the view taken by the Learned Single Judge, while allowing W.P.No.45350 of 2006 by an order dated 19.04.2010 in modifying the punishment of Respondent/Employee to that of compulsory retirement from removal of service, is not legally correct and valid in the eye of Law. Accordingly, this Court interferes with the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.45350 of 2006 and sets aside the same, to prevent an aberration of Justice. Consequently, the Writ Appeal succeeds. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The order passed by the Learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.45350 of 2006 dated 19.04.2010, is hereby set aside by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Writ Appeal and W.P.No.45350 of 2006 filed by the Respondent/Employee is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.