JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, CJ.- By filing this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner seeks to challenge the order dt. 26.5.2011 (Annexure-A-3) passed by respondent no 4 (S. P. Imphal). 2. By impugned order, a minor penalty of stoppage of annual periodical increments for two years payable to the writ petitioner is imposed. 3. So the short question which is involved in this writ petition is whether respondent No. 4 Superintendent of Police was justified in imposing minor penalty on the writ petitioner? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and on perusal of the record of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition. 5. Here is a case where the writ petitioner who is working in State Police Department as constable faced the departmental inquiry for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him while he was in service. He was therefore suspended from the services and then departmental proceedings were initiated against him. He participated in the inquiry by filing reply to charge sheet etc., and eventually it was found in the inquiry proceedings by the inquiry officer that charge levelled against the writ petitioner was proved. 6. The appointing authority then by impugned order imposed the minor penalty and accordingly passed the impugned order which has given rise to filing of this writ petition by the delinquent employee. 7. In my considered opinion, no fault can be noticed in the impugned order. In the first place, it is based on proper inquiry. Second, the inquiry was held after affording to the writ petitioner proper opportunity of hearing. Third the writ petitioner fully availed of this right in participating in the inquiry. Fourth, once the charges levelled against the writ petitioner (delinquent employee) were proved in the departmental inquiry proceedings then it was for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinquent employee (as in this case - or the writ petitioner) and lastly looking to the nature and the gravity of the charges, if the appointing authority had chosen to impose the minor punishment of stoppage of increments on the writ petitioner then in my opinion, the writ petitioner should feel fortunate that he was left by imposing only the minor punishment of this nature and was reinstated in the service by revoking his suspension order. 8. 8. It is a settled principle of law that a right to impose the penalty and secondly what penalty should be imposed on the delinquent employee on establishment of misconduct is that of the employer (appointing authority) under the service rules and so long as it is not found to be totally arbitrary or against the rules or shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the employee concern, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere in such imposition. In case of minor punishment, it is all the more for the court not to interfere in such imposition. 9. Though learned counsel for the writ petitioner argued the matter but I am not impressed by any of his submissions which in my considered view does not arise or/and born out of the record of the case. 10. In the light of foregoing discussion, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limini. No costs. _____________