JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J.:- 1. Petitioner holds rank of Dy. Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He is aggrieved with the order No. D.IX-17/2004-CRC dated 19.08.2013, whereby following punishment has been imposed on him. "Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further directions that that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Accordingly petitioners' pay is reduced from Rs. 28420/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- to Rs. 27,400/- plus Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- for a period of three years i.e. from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2016 in the pay band of Rs. 15,600/- 39,100(PB-3)". 1. He questions the order on the grounds set out in the petition. Before going to the grounds of challenge, it would be appropriate to have a closer look at the background facts. Petitioner while posted as Dy. Commandant - QM/MTO 89 Bn. CRPF, is alleged to have indulged in some omissions and commissions. The complaint of misconduct received against petitioner lead to Departmental Enquiry under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The memorandum of charges comprising of Annexures I to III, i.e. statement of articles of charge, statement of imputations, statement of evidence by which the charges were proposed to be proved, was served on the petitioner. Petitioner in his written statement of defense dated 5th September 2007 denied all the charges leveled against him. The enquiry was entrusted to Shri. M.I. Mallick, Commandant ICD (now Commandant CRPF). Petitioner nominated Shri Shiv Chander, Dy. Commandant (retired) to assist him in his defense. 2. The Enquiry Officer recorded statements of witnesses and on perusal of evidence brought on record held 1st charge i.e. the petitioner failed to pay an amount of Rs. 2670/- on account of spare parts for his Maruti car to M/S. United Motor Stores, GT Road, Ferozpur Cantt. proved against petitioner. The IInd charge, petitioner deputed Truck No. DIG-424 to M/S. Luxmi Machinery Stores, GT Road, Ferozpur Cantt, for repairs and TV charge, i.e. petitioner collected Rs. 11400/- from Shri R. Gautam, Assistant Commandant and failed to maintain the account of amount received, were held not proved. However, third charge i.e. the petitioner retained an amount of Rs. proved against petitioner. The IInd charge, petitioner deputed Truck No. DIG-424 to M/S. Luxmi Machinery Stores, GT Road, Ferozpur Cantt, for repairs and TV charge, i.e. petitioner collected Rs. 11400/- from Shri R. Gautam, Assistant Commandant and failed to maintain the account of amount received, were held not proved. However, third charge i.e. the petitioner retained an amount of Rs. 6000/- received in cash from M/S. Mahavir General Store, GT road, Ferozpur Cantt, and did not pay the amount to M/S. Luxmi Machinery Store, GT Raod, Ferozpur Cantt, was found to have been partially proved. 3. The outcome of Enquiry was placed before the Disciplinary Authority who forwarded it to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for 1st stage advice. The Commission vide its communication dated 11th Oct, 2011 advised imposition of minor penalty. The copy of enquiry report was served on the petitioner along with advice received from CVC, for his response, to be received within 15 days from the date of service of report. 4. Petitioner made a representation on 13th February 2013, wherein he pleaded that witnesses examined did not deserve any credence and that witnesses during Departmental Enquiry had deposed that statements made by them during Preliminary Enquiry were made under pressure/influence. An attempt was made to assail other aspects of conclusions drawn by Enquiry officer. Petitioner was allowed to make oral submissions as also provide documentary evidence in support of his stand. 5. The Disciplinary Authority on going through the whole record including petitioners' stand concluded that no new facts were brought to light and therefore decided to impose suitable penalty on petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority decided to consult Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to decide quantum of penalty to be imposed on petitioner. The Commission vide communication dated 5th Oct, 2012 advised imposition of a major penalty i.e. "reduction in the time scale pay for a period of three years with further directions that charged officer will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and expiry of such period and that reduction will have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay. The Disciplinary Authority acting on the advice imposed same punishment as was proposed by the Commission. 6. The Disciplinary Authority acting on the advice imposed same punishment as was proposed by the Commission. 6. The order dated 19th August 2013 whereby penalty has been imposed on petitioner, is questioned on the ground that Departmental Enquiry was ordered notwithstanding a recommendation made by CVC on 4th January 2007, to close the matter. The respondents are said to have failed to adhere to the instructions contained in OM No. 425/04/2012 dated 29th November 2012, calling for expeditious disciplinary proceedings. The statements of witness including PW Ramesh Bansal are said to have been extracted under duress by Shri S.S. Sandu, Commandant. It is next urged that the matter was referred back to the Enquiry officer after the Enquiry was concluded and the Enquiry officer allowed to add to enquiry report, least realizing once the enquiry was concluded, he became functus officio and could not deal afresh with the matter. The impugned order imposing a major penalty on petitioner, pushing him 400 steps below the position, the petitioner was entitled to hold in seniority list, is said to have passed in a mechanical manner, without proper appreciation of evidence. Petitioner also disputes reference of the matter to UPSC. It is disputed that there was enough material brought on record to warrant finding as returned on Article 1 & 3 of memorandum of charge. 7. Petition is resisted by respondents on the grounds that failure on the part of petitioner to peruse an alternate efficacious remedy available under rules, renders the petition not maintainable. It is admitted that matter was sent to CVC, for 1st stage advice. Respondents further maintain that on going through the matter, it was found proper to order Departmental Enquiry and that prescribed procedure was adhered to while conducting enquiry, giving full opportunity to petitioner to put forth his stand. It is admitted that CVC, in its second stage advice recommended imposition of minor penalty on the petitioner. Respondents insist that as UPSC advised imposition of major penalty on petitioner, such penalty was imposed on him vide order impugned in the petition. 8. I have gone through the pleadings and record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. Respondents insist that as UPSC advised imposition of major penalty on petitioner, such penalty was imposed on him vide order impugned in the petition. 8. I have gone through the pleadings and record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 9. It is well settled law that this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, where a regular enquiry is conducted and punishment imposed on a delinquent official, cannot assume a role of appellate authority and re-appreciate the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed by Mr. Makroo, ASGI, on law laid down in AIR 1965 SC 1103 . The petitioner cannot be therefore heard, saying that evidence before the enquiry officer was scanty, inadequate and insufficient to prove misconduct alleged against him. Similarly ground of delay in concluding enquiry would not be available to the petitioner to question the outcome of enquiry and the penalty imposed. The departmental enquiries because of one or other reason and at time litigation during the enquiry are not proceeded with due dispatch and delay therefore, cannot be the only ground to negate the enquiry and its results. 10. Petitioner's case is that as only charge No. 1st was proved against him and charge-IIIrd, partly proved, he ought not to have been imposed the punishment, is of no avail to the petitioner. The Court cannot interfere with the results of enquiry and the penalty imposed on the basis of such enquiry because only one or more amongst many charges against delinquent official were proved while other charges were not proved. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to examine the impact of charges, not proved against the delinquent official on overall result of the enquiry. 11. An attempt is being made to convince the court that penalty imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved against the petitioner. There can be no disagreement that court may interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction with the penalty imposed, where it is found to be disproportionate, to the charge leveled and proved. However, there must be something more than disproportionately as regards penalty imposed on delinquent official. Whether penalty imposed is proportionate or disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the delinquent official is ordinarily to be left to the discretion of Disciplinary Authority. However, there must be something more than disproportionately as regards penalty imposed on delinquent official. Whether penalty imposed is proportionate or disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against the delinquent official is ordinarily to be left to the discretion of Disciplinary Authority. However, the Court would step in and interfere where disproportionality is so gross that it shock the conscience of the Court. In the case on hand, penalty imposed is not of such character so as to prompt intervention. 12. There are however, some peculiar features of the case that need to be noticed and would call for exercise of writ jurisdiction. The CVC, in its first stage advice recommended closure of matter. The enquiry was ordered notwithstanding the advice given CVC, in its advice after conclusion of enquiry recommended imposition of minor penalty. The suggestion was ignored. The matter was forwarded to UPSC for its advice and the UPSC advised to major penalty, finally imposed on the petitioner. 13. The respondents did not take an independent decision as regards the quantum of penalty, imposed on the petitioner. They instead exclusively relied on the advice given by UPSC. The penalty imposed vide order dated 19th August 2013, is mere reproduction of advice given by UPSC vide its No. F3/105/2012-SI/05.10.2012. The Disciplinary Authority was free to treat advice given by UPSC as one of inputs while deciding the question of quantum of punishment and decide quantum of punishment after looking into all other aspects of the case like initial advice given by CVC, the nature of allegations proved against the delinquent official etc. as highlighted above. The Disciplinary Authority instead decided to place exclusive reliance on the UPSC advice and imposed the penalty as suggested by UPSC. In such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of respondents, i.e. Disciplinary Authority to provide petitioner a copy of advice received from UPSC on 5th Oct, 2012 and enable him to file his response to the advice made and take a decision in the matter only after receipt and perusal of reply, if any, received from petitioner. Respondents by not adhering to such a course have deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to respond to the UPSC advice and convince the Disciplinary Authority that punishment suggested was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Respondents by not adhering to such a course have deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to respond to the UPSC advice and convince the Disciplinary Authority that punishment suggested was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The record available on the file would reveal that UPSC advice dated 5th Oct, 2012 was not made available to the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner argues that in terms of law laid down in Union of India and Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589 , and failure on part of respondents to supply copy of UPSC advice has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It would be appropriate to extract the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case; "We are of the opinion that although Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory, if the authorities do consult the Union Public Service Commission and rely on the report of the commission for taking disciplinary action, then the principles of natural justice require that a copy of the report must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned so that he may have an opportunity of rebuttal. Thus, in our view, the aforesaid decision in T.V. Patel's case is clearly distinguishable. There may be a case where the report of the Union Public Service Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority and in that case it is certainly not necessary to supply a copy of the same to the concerned employee. However, if it is relied upon, then a copy of the same must be supplied in advance to the concerned employee, otherwise, there will be violation of the principles of natural justice. There is also the view taken by this court in the case of S.N. Narula v. Union of India & Others, Civil Appeal No. 642 of 2004 decided on 30th January, 2004. It may be noted that the decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra). It is well settled that if a subsequent coordinate bench of equal strength wants to take a different view, it can only refer the matter to a larger bench, otherwise the prior decision of a co-ordinate bench is binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength. Since, the decision in S.N. Narula's case (Supra) was not noticed in T.V. Patel's case (supra), the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. Since, the decision in S.N. Narula's case (Supra) was not noticed in T.V. Patel's case (supra), the latter decision is a judgment per incuriam. The decision in S.N. Narula's case (supra) was binding on the subsequent bench of equal strength and hence, it could not take a contrary view, as is settled by a series of judgments of this court;" 15. The principle that emerges from above discussion is that whenever on consideration of Departmental enquiry, punishment is proposed to be imposed in terms of opinion given or recommendation made by some independent body like CVC or UPSC, copy of such opinion/recommendation is to be provided to the delinquent officer before imposing the penalty and he/she given an opportunity to rebut it. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that in the present case, exclusive reliance was placed upon UPSC advice for deciding the quantum of penalty. It was therefore, necessary for the respondents to provide a copy to petitioner for his rebuttal. The respondents by not furnishing such copy have violated principles of natural justice and in the process deferred of right to respond to the report. 16. For the reasons discussed, Writ Petition is allowed and the order No. D.IX-17/2004-CRC dated 19.08.2013, is quashed to the extent it imposes major penalty on the petitioner. Resultantly, respondents shall supply copy of UPSC advice to petitioner, enabling him to file his response and make an effort to convince the respondents that penalty suggested by UPSC would be unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Disposed of along with connected CMPs.