JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Aggrieved by Award dated 05.06.2012 in Reference No.36 of 2009 whereby, the reference has been answered in negative, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case narrated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner while working as Head Cashier in Allahabad Bank, Chunar Branch was served Charge Memo dated 22.04.2003. The petitioner denied the allegation and a domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found the charges except, the charge of consuming liquor while on duty, proved. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 17.06.2004 imposed penalty of dismissal from service, which was affirmed by appellate authority vide order dated 10.11.2004. A dispute was raised by the petitioner which after failure of conciliation proceeding between the parties, was referred for adjudication vide notification dated 06.02.2006, for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. During the proceeding in Reference No.36 of 2009 vide order dated 12.05.2010, the Tribunal held the domestic enquiry not fair and proper. Aggrieved by Award dated 05.06.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Tribunal held the domestic enquiry not fair and proper and, the Management failed to produce any evidence in support of the charge, the reference should have been answered in favour of the workman. It is contended that on the ground of past misconduct the order of dismissal from service, cannot be passed. Referring to 80% disability of the workman, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges framed and proved in the domestic enquiry. 4. Before referring to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is noticed that vide order dated 12.05.2010, domestic enquiry was held not fair and proper only on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was not examined as a witness before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has recorded that, “The management has not produced the Enquiry Officer, who has conducted the enquiry. It shows that the enquiry conducted against the concerned workman was not fair and proper because WW1 has stated clearly that the enquiry was not fairly and properly held. The management has not produced any witness even the Enquiry Officer. The Tribunal has recorded that, “The management has not produced the Enquiry Officer, who has conducted the enquiry. It shows that the enquiry conducted against the concerned workman was not fair and proper because WW1 has stated clearly that the enquiry was not fairly and properly held. The management has not produced any witness even the Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, it shows that the enquiry against the concerned workman held by the management is not fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice”. From the aforesaid reasons assigned by the Tribunal, it appears that no other plea was raised by the workman challenging the fairness of the domestic enquiry. Merely because the concerned workman alleged and the Management failed to produce Enquiry Officer at the preliminary stage, the domestic enquiry could not have been held not fair and proper. Award dated 05.06.2012 reveals that the Management produced one R.S. Dwevedi as MW1 and the entire record of domestic enquiry vide Exts. M1 to M29 were produced before the Tribunal. The records produced by the Tribunal contained the previous charges framed against the workman and the penalty imposed upon the workman. It is not in dispute that vide order dated 05.10.1990, the disciplinary authority had imposed a penalty of dismissal from service, which was modified by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.12.1990 and the penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The workman was again imposed a penalty of lowering down one increment in scale vide order dated 14.09.2000. In the present case, vide Charge Memo dated 02.06.2003, as many as five charges were framed against the workman. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges except, the charge of consuming liquor during the office hours, proved. Charge Memo dated 02.06.2003 reveals the following charges levelled against the workman: “(a) On 22.04.2003 while on duty you had consumed liquor and were creating ugly scenes by misbehaving with customers and staff & several such incident reported by the branch. (b) When the officiating Manager of the branch asked you to behave properly you abused him in presence of other staff members/officers of the branch. (c) Aggrieved by your misbehavior one of the customers lodged a written complaint to the Manager. (b) When the officiating Manager of the branch asked you to behave properly you abused him in presence of other staff members/officers of the branch. (c) Aggrieved by your misbehavior one of the customers lodged a written complaint to the Manager. (d) You also put hurdle in smooth functioning of the branch by shouting over and abusing the two senior officers, who were deputed by the Regional office to take stock of the situation. (e) You even torn a letter served upon you by the officiating Manager purportedly asking you to close the cash as it was already 4.30 PM and it was quite unsafe to keep the cash open to risk”. 5. In his statement, the workman admitted previous misconduct for which, penalty was imposed upon him that is, the penalty of stoppage of two increments for the first misconduct and lowering of one increment in scale for the second misconduct. In the present incident, as noticed above, the Enquiry Officer found four charges proved against the workman. One of the charges was abusing two senior officers, who were deputed by the Regional office to supervise the work. Considering the previous misconduct of the workman, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the conduct of the workman discloses that he is an indisciplined workman. 6. The plea that the Management did not produce evidence in support of the charge framed against the workman before the Tribunal is liable to be rejected. Merely because at the initial stage, the Enquiry Officer was not examined, it was not open to the workman to contend that the charges framed vide Charge memo dated 02.06.2003 stood not proved. The Management has produced as many as 29 documentary evidence, which were duly proved during the proceeding before the Tribunal. It is well settled that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings recorded during the domestic enquiry. In “State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao”, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 21. “................... The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. In “State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao”, reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 21. “................... The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence................” 7. The question of quantum of punishment is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority and the Courts would not interfere with the imposition of penalty unless, it is found that the penalty imposed is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the Court. Insofar as, contention that the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges found proved is concerned, in “Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra”, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: 16. “...........Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty...........” 8. In the present case, as noticed above, the petitioner has been found guilty of misconducting himself habitually. One of the charges was for abusing two senior officials of the Bank. In “Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan”, (1964) 5 SCR 64 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 7. “................ A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. “................ A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice..............….” 9. None of the grounds mentioned in Syed Yakoob case is present in this case. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.