Judgment 1. In this writ petition, what this Court is called upon to consider is the proportionality of punishment meted out to the petitioner, an employee of the first respondent Devaswom Board, who was removed from service on the ground that the charges that had been framed against him stood proved, especially, by his own admission. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed in 2003 as Watcher-cum-Peon in one of the temples under the management of the first respondent Board. Considered hierarchically, Watcher-cum-Peon, being the feeder category, the next promotional post is Junior Devaswom Officer. If any person is required to be promoted, it shall be through a written test and interview. 3. In any event, since there was a vacancy, instead of going for regular promotion, the first respondent Board put the petitioner in charge of Pallanchathanoor Devaswom. While the petitioner was working in the said temple as Junior Devaswom Officer, the third respondent issued Exhibit P2 memo in the manner of a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to answer the charge of financial irregularities. Pursuant to Exhibit P2, the petitioner was placed under suspension through Exhibit P3 proceedings. Later, on 15.09.2012, Exhibit P4 memo of charges was issued, which was followed by the Board's proceedings in Exhibit P5. Having quantified at Rs. 80,358/- the loss the respondent Board suffered on account what are said to be the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, the second respondent issued Exhibit P5 (a) show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to answer the charges stated in Exhibit P5(a). From the record it is evident that, through Exhibit P6, the petitioner filed his explanation. Having not been satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent passed Exhibit P7 order removing the petitioner from service. 4. Aggrieved by Exhibit P7 order, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P8 review petition before the Board. Later, ventilating his grievance that Exhibit P8 review petition had not been disposed of expeditiously, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.26065/2013, which was disposed of by this Court through Exhibit P9 judgment. It can be seen that this Court directed the authorities to consider Exhibit P8 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Eventually in compliance with the direction of this Court, the first respondent passed Exhibit P10 order re-affirming the findings in Exhibit P7. It can be seen that this Court directed the authorities to consider Exhibit P8 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Eventually in compliance with the direction of this Court, the first respondent passed Exhibit P10 order re-affirming the findings in Exhibit P7. Under those circumstances, aggrieved by Exhibits P7 and P10, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Sri.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the petitioner has never been guilty of any misappropriation. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that, though the petitioner belonged to the last grade service of the respondent Board, he was kept in the promotional post against his will. Given the petitioner's lack of experience and family problems, especially his son's ill health, the respondent authorities ought to have properly guided him administrationally. According to the learned Senior Counsel, whatever the shortcomings found on the part of the petitioner are only as a result of lack of experience and proper guidance. 6. Taking this Court through the entire record, the learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the respondent Board has not suffered any financial loss, inasmuch as, whatever the amount quantified by the authorities was remitted back by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel has also contended that at no point of time had there been any proper enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Expatiating on the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that no notice had been given to the petitioner before enquiry. Adverting to the admissions made by the petitioner in Exhibit P8, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that the superior officers of the respondent Board lured him with a false promise that if he were to admit that he had committed certain irregularities purely owing to his inexperience, the proceedings would be dropped and that he could have his employment saved. Thus beguiled, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P8 admitting to the charges, which he had never been guilty of. 7. Thus beguiled, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P8 admitting to the charges, which he had never been guilty of. 7. Placing reliance on Girish Bhushan Goyal v. BHEL and another ( (2014) 1 SCC 82 ), the learned Senior Counsel has further contended that given the nature of the charges and given the further fact that the respondent Board has not suffered any loss, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate and could not be sustained on the anvil of the principle of proportionality. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel has urged this Court to set aside Exhibits P7 and P10 orders, thereby, consequently, restoring the petitioner to service. 8. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. He has submitted that when, initially, Exhibit P2 memo was served on the petitioner indicating the element of misappropriation committed by him, despite a clear opportunity having been given, the petitioner never bothered to submit any explanation. According to him, when a detailed charge memo was issued in Exhibit P4, once again, the petitioner remained insouciant, without submitting any explanation. 9. Having read out the charges, the learned standing Counsel has stated that the allegations made against the petitioner are very severe in nature and essentially, it is a matter of loss of confidence as far as the employer is concerned. In this regard, the learned Stating Counsel has placed reliance on Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. M.G.Vittal Rao ( (2012) 1 SCC 442 ). 10. Summing up his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has asserted that, given the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, especially given the fact that all of them were admitted by the petitioner through Exhibit P8, the punishment meted out to the petitioner cannot be stated to be disproportionate. Thus, he urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, apart from perusing the record. 12. In this writ petition, the issues that fall for consideration are whether the petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him in Exhibit P5(a) and whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner offends the principle of proportionality. To examine the issue, it is appropriate to extract the relevant charges levelled against the petitioner in Exhibit P5(a). 12. In this writ petition, the issues that fall for consideration are whether the petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him in Exhibit P5(a) and whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner offends the principle of proportionality. To examine the issue, it is appropriate to extract the relevant charges levelled against the petitioner in Exhibit P5(a). The most relevant charges are as follows: “There is grave failure on the part of Sri.Sankarakrishnan in the effective administration of the Pallan Chathannur Devaswom for the period from 9-8-08 to the date of his relieving on 10-2-12 after he had taken charge as Junior Devaswam Officer of Pallanchathannur Devaswom. It is proved that from 2009 onwards there started the practice of misappropriating the devaswom fund closing the account by showing a lesser number of tickets in the Single lock register of Vallikkode Valayappullikkavu temple. Financial misappropriation was committed in the devaswom for the last 3 years closing the account by showing lesser number of tickets and that even though it was realized from the ticket register of Valayappullikkavu the actual number of average tickets that are to be utilized, by taking more ticket books from the double lock register and entering into the single lock register. It was deposed by the counter employees that for not proving the manipulation done in the single lock register of Valayappullikkavu, the book received from the counter employee was returned after the pages written were toned and it will be clear that for committing financial misappropriation that this was done by the Junior Devaswom officer. The gold chain to be worn by the Bhagavathi on special days which was kept in the possession of the Junior Devaswom Officer weighing 80.480 grams was pledged in the Bank and when the matter came to light it was taken back from the Bank and charge was handed over. Grave financial irregularities like not remitting the devaswom fund to the Bank on specific dates; writing expense in the cash book of the amounts by recording artificial dates in the chalan are seen committed. On 1-11-11 at the time when new single lock register of Valayappullikkavu started by showing the 5100 tickets which was remained in the old register in short he had manipulated in the new register and thereby he had intentionally attempted to steal a total amount of Rs.75,300/-.” 13. On 1-11-11 at the time when new single lock register of Valayappullikkavu started by showing the 5100 tickets which was remained in the old register in short he had manipulated in the new register and thereby he had intentionally attempted to steal a total amount of Rs.75,300/-.” 13. Indeed, by any reckoning, the charges are very grave in nature. It is inexplicable why the petitioner remained all through silent, never bothering to submit his explanation either to Exhibit P2 or to Exhibit P4 charge memos. When Exhibit P5(a) show cause was issued proposing to remove the petitioner from service, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 explanation. It is illustrative to consider Exhibit P6 to determine whether there is any element of admission on the part of the petitioner to the charges levelled against him. Since it is a cryptic explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is profitable to extract the same in its entirety. It reads as follows: “To the show cause notice No.M691/12 dated 19.6.2013 received by me from the higher authority I submit my written explanation as hereunder: I worked as J.D.O. of Pallan Chathannur for the period from, 9-8-2008 to 31-1-2012. As there was situation of I could not pay my attention to the temple affairs for 2-3 months in 2011 that the wrong doings stated in the show cause notice was occurred. I have to spent lakhs of rupees towards the expert treatment of my son on the doctors informed that as my son is not having thyroid gland by birth, in such situation it will result in mental retardation. There is a situation of taking medicine for life long. It is true that in such circumstance as I was mentally weak I could not concentrate in the work as required. Due to lack of previous experience in the post of J.D.O. There occurred fault in my acts. There was nobody during these period to advice me as required and to move forward by correcting the mistake. All the loss caused to the Devaswom is my liability and I remitted the same to the Devaswom. By excusing the faults committed by me, giving me a humanitarian consideration, I may be given relaxation from the punishment. I assure that I will not repeat these kinds of misdeeds in future and also assure that I shall work with honesty in future.” 14. By excusing the faults committed by me, giving me a humanitarian consideration, I may be given relaxation from the punishment. I assure that I will not repeat these kinds of misdeeds in future and also assure that I shall work with honesty in future.” 14. A holistic reading of the above extract leads to a definite conclusion that all that the petitioner has offered in his explanation is that he was inexperienced, that he was not property guided by the authorities concerned and that he had severe family problems, especially, the serious ill health of his son. He has also expressly admitted that all the loss caused to the Devaswom was his liability and that he had remitted the amount already. Eventually, he sought the pardon of the authorities and further sought his case to be considered on humanitarian ground, so that his services would not be terminated. Thus, going by Exhibit P6, especially given the gravity of the charges that had been levelled against the petitioner, in my considered view, the first issue could be answered in the affirmative that the petitioner did admit his guilt in relation to the financial irregularities and dereliction of duty said to have been committed by him. 15. The learned Senior Counsel has made an attempt to impress upon this Court that there is an element of violation of principles of natural justice; in fact, no proper enquiry was conducted and based on Exhibit P6, capital punishment of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. According to him, the very Exhibit P6 is a product of false promises made by the superior authorities and as such, it ought not to have been treated as admission on the petitioner's part. 16. To decide whether it could be one of the extenuating circumstances to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically, especially on the touch stone of proportionality, I examined the entire record to see whether there is any express averments in the manner of an explanation to any of the charges either in Exhibit P6 or in Exhibit P8, which the petitioner termed a review petition. Though Exhibit P6 is a clean admission, Exhibit P8 does contain a reference to what is said to be a false promise made by the authorities enticing him into a confession. Though Exhibit P6 is a clean admission, Exhibit P8 does contain a reference to what is said to be a false promise made by the authorities enticing him into a confession. The petitioner has placed on record in Exhibit P8 that when these matters were told to the superior officers, they have stated that 'in all Devaswoms that is the condition and if he want the job you have to suffer this'. 17. I am afraid, the above statement could not be treated as any sort of inducement or false promise on the part of the superior officers, if one were to believe that those authorities did make any effort to influence the petitioner. 18. In Girish Bhushan Goyal's case (supra), on which the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance, it can be seen that the appellant therein was an employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL). When he was removed from service on proven ground of negligence, he laid a challenge against it before the High Court Uttarakhand, which refused to interfere with the order of removal from service. The appellant took the matter to the Supreme Court. On examination of Rule 25 of BHEL Conduct Rules, the Supreme Court has held that the major punishment of removal from service is totally disproportionate and essentially it calls for interference. On a deeper examination, it can be seen that Rule 25 of the BHEL Conduct Rules mandates that to impose a major penalty, the misconduct could have resulted not only in departmental proceedings, but also in criminal prosecution. In such an eventuality, notwithstanding the outcome of the criminal proceedings, misconduct of the delinquent employee could be treated as serious, calling for imposition of major penalty. I am afraid, the petitioner could not demonstrate before this Court by showing any similar provision governing his service conditions. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to take a different view, calling in question the discretionary power exercised by the disciplinary authorities. 19. I am afraid, the petitioner could not demonstrate before this Court by showing any similar provision governing his service conditions. Accordingly, this Court is not in a position to take a different view, calling in question the discretionary power exercised by the disciplinary authorities. 19. On the other hand, in M.G.Vittal Rao's case (supra), a learned Division Bench of the Supreme Court, having surveyed the entire case law on the issue of misconduct of an employee and the resultant loss of confidence, has eventually held as follows: “Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason that discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed.” 20. Going by the above, I conclude that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature, casting a huge shadow on the integrity of the petitioner, thereby, giving rise to loss of confidence in him by his employer. 21. Though the principle of proportionality is essentially a matter of subjective assessment, this Court, at any rate, cannot interfere with the statutory powers of the disciplinary authority in imposing the major penalties, the parameters concerning which have been well settled by now. It cannot be stated that the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of removal from service based on any extraneous material or by not taking into account any material available in support of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, it is to be concluded that the authorities have exercised their power of discipline strictly within the statutory combines. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.