JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) Order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, Circuit at Shimla, in OA No. 633/HP/2009, titled Sangat Ram Vs. Union of India and others, is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioners (respondents before CAT) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 2.The respondent herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘original applicant’, was at the relevant time working as ‘Gramin Dak Sewak’ in Branch Post office Fozal, District Kullu, H.P. In order to give a fillip to the business of the Postal Department, routine letters/circulars were issued by the department to its employees, including the original applicant. However, he, instead of carrying out the directions contained in those orders took an offence and wrote to the departmental authorities challenging their authority to issue such letters to him. He even did not stop at that end and instead issued a legal notice as well to his superiors. 3. Against the foregoing background, departmental action was initiated against the original applicant leading to holding of an inquiry against him which culminated into submission of a report indicting him, pursuant to which, he was ultimately removed from employment without entailing disqualification for future employment. The department appeal filed by him was dismissed. 4.Being aggrieved, he carried the matter to CAT which passed the aforesaid order dated 22.11.2010, operative part whereof reads as under:- “In view of the above position, the impugned order of punishment dated 30.6.08 (Annexure A-5) and the appellate order dated 13.7.09 (Annexure A-7) are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.3 to consider the matter afresh and impose some other lesser punishment other than dismissal or removal, if need be after affording him an opportunity of being heard. This exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 5. On a bare perusal of the order passed by CAT, it is apparent that it exceeds the limit of judicial intervention warranted in such cases. It is settled by now that though the court has power to scrutinize the procedural process adopted by the authority while conducting departmental proceedings against its employees, it cannot substitute the punishment imposed upon the delinquent by importing its own will in the matter. It is settled by now that though the court has power to scrutinize the procedural process adopted by the authority while conducting departmental proceedings against its employees, it cannot substitute the punishment imposed upon the delinquent by importing its own will in the matter. It is further settled that in a case where the conscience of the court is shocked keeping in view the misconduct established against the delinquent and the quantum of punishment imposed upon him, it can always issue directions to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter in the light of such proportionality between the misconduct and punishment required for the same, as has been held by this court in a Division Bench judgment in Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & another, Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 1025, vide paras 12 to 14, which are as under:- “12. It is a settled proposition of law that scope of judicial review in the matters concerning departmental proceedings and the resultant penalty/punishment is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases, as in the present case. The petitioner was indicted consequent upon enquiry proceedings conducted in accordance with rules. It is a settled proposition of law that scope of judicial review in the matters concerning departmental proceedings and the resultant penalty/punishment is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases, as in the present case. The petitioner was indicted consequent upon enquiry proceedings conducted in accordance with rules. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case when the records unerringly go to show that the petitioner was in fact ailing during the relevant period, a part whereof from 31.05.1985 to 25.05.1986, which comes to just less than one year, is also covered under medical certificate, Annexure P-16, issued by a Medical Board headed by Chief Medical Officer, Shimla, District Shimla, the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority is on the face of it grossly disproportionate to the misconduct established against the petitioner and in a way shocks the judicial conscience, as has been held by the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court in Dev Singh vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another, (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 9 wherein it has been held as under vide para 6 of the judgment: “A perusal of the above judgments clearly shows that a court sitting in appeal against a punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings will not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty, however, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court, then the court would appropriately mould the relief either by directing the disciplinary/appropriate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation it may make an exception in rare cases and impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. It is also clear from the above noted judgments of this Court, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer, then the court would interfere in such a case.” 13. To the similar effect is the proposition of law propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Meghalaya and others vs. Mecken Singh N. Marak, (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 580, paras 14 and 15, being relevant, are extracted below: “14. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The jurisdiction of the High Court, to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited and cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. The High Court, although has jurisdiction in appropriate case, to consider the question in regard to the quantum of punishment, but it has a limited role to play. It is now well settled that the High Courts, in exercise of powers under Article 226, do not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless there exist sufficient reasons therefor. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. In the impugned order of the High Court no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. 15. While considering thequestion of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent at the conclusion of departmental enquiry, the court should also take into consideration, the mental set-up of the delinquent, the type of duty to be performed by him and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands.” 14. In view of the above, the petition succeeds partly and is allowed in part. If the charged employee holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct, in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands.” 14. In view of the above, the petition succeeds partly and is allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.06.1988, Annexure P-8, as upheld in appeal, vide order dated 29.10.2010, Annexure P-14, is quashed with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to reconsider the matter with regard to quantum of penalty upon the petitioner taking into consideration the proportionality between the misconduct established against the petitioner and the punishment to be imposed upon him for the same in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove and the observations made in this judgment and take a final decision in the matter within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to him, if so desired.” 6.In view of the above, the impugned order of CAT dated 22.11.2010, Annexure P-3, is quashed to the extent it amounts to issuance of a direction to the respondents to hand out a particular punishment to the original applicant and as a result is modified with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to reconsider the matter regarding imposition of punishment to the original applicant keeping in view the proportionality between the misconduct proved against him and appropriate punishment required to be imposed upon him keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, such as the advanced age of the original applicant, which right now is stated to be 60 years, the nature of his employment which is not permanent and the submission that he is the sole bread earning member in the family belonging to poor strata of society. 7.Resultantly, there shall be a direction to the respondents/competent authority to reconsider the entire matter in the light of this judgment within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment before respondent No.3, Superintendent of Post Offices, Mandi, Division Mandi, H.P. by the petitioner. 7.Resultantly, there shall be a direction to the respondents/competent authority to reconsider the entire matter in the light of this judgment within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment before respondent No.3, Superintendent of Post Offices, Mandi, Division Mandi, H.P. by the petitioner. As prayed for, the original applicant is permitted to submit an appropriate representation, highlighting the circumstances in which he is placed, alongwith copy of this judgment to the aforesaid authority. 8.The petition, as also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.