JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing Office Order dated 02.06.2005 (Annexure 7) passed by Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, who by the said order has dismissed the petitioner from services, apart from awarding following punishments: (a) The petitioner would not be entitled to anything apart from the subsistence allowance paid during the period of suspension; (b) To recover a sum of Rs. 14,000/- from the salary and arrears of the petitioner equivalent to the loss suffered by the Corporation on account of theft/loot of foodgrains from Pirtand Godown of the Corporation. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Grade IV employee under respondents-corporation in the year 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. While continuing as such, a charge-sheet dated 20.01.2005 was served upon the petitioner, in which, five charges were framed against the petitioner and in pursuance to the said charges, the petitioner submitted his show cause reply, which on being found unsatisfactory, enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Basing on the findings of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2005, which is being assailed in the writ application. 3. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner was serving as a Night Guard since 04.04.1975 and in the year 2004, while posted at Pirtand Block (District: Giridih) Foodgrain Godown, the petitioner left his duties without any sanctioned leave on 28.09.2004 and returned on 13.10.2004. In the meantime, in the night of 28/29.09.2004, foodgrains from Pirtand Godown was stolen causing loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 14,000/-. On return, explanation was called from the petitioner for the said unauthorized absence, which on being found unsatisfactory, the petitioner was put under suspension and domestic enquiry was conducted, witnesses were examined and conducting officer having found his show cause reply unsatisfactory found him guilty of the charges. Basing upon the said enquiry report, the respondents-authorities passed the impugned order. 4. Heard Mr. Basing upon the said enquiry report, the respondents-authorities passed the impugned order. 4. Heard Mr. K.K. Shriwastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the date of joining, the petitioner has unblemished service career till the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner in the petitioner 2004 and further submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and punishment appears to be grossly disproportionate to the alleged charges. It has further been submitted that imposition of punishment of recovery of Rs. 14,000/- towards loss of theft of foodgrains in the godown does not have any leg to stand as the same did not find place in the charge-sheet, so the order of punishment to this effect appears to be arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Moreover, the petitioner is also entitled to full salary since the date of suspension till the dismissal from services. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents-corporation has submitted that order of impugned punishment has been passed basing on the report of the enquiry officer, who found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. It has further been submitted no procedural irregularity has been committed, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Moreover, interference in the disciplinary proceeding is very limited to the extent, if the charges are based on no evidence or where there has been procedural irregularity, the writ Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and writ Court cannot re-apprise the evidence adduced during the enquiry. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it is quite evident that there has been no procedural irregularity from the initiation of disciplinary proceeding till its culmination as the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges by the enquiry officer. 8. On perusal of impugned order at Annexure 7, it appears that besides imposing punishment of dismissal from services, Rs. 8. On perusal of impugned order at Annexure 7, it appears that besides imposing punishment of dismissal from services, Rs. 14,000/- has also been ordered to be recovered from the salary/arrears of salary of the petitioner due to the loss suffered by the corporation on account of theft of foodgrains from the Godowm, but, it appears that quantification of that amount has not been mentioned in the charge, so the punishment awarded to this effect by the disciplinary authority appears to be unjustified. That apart, the petitioner is also entitled to get the full salary of the period of suspension as the enquiry officer has nowhere in its report has made any specific statement that the period, in which, the petitioner was under suspension is to be treated as “on duty” or anything else. Since, the petitioner's case come within the narrow compass of doctrine of proportionality, the impugned order of punishment deserves to be interfered with on that ground alone. So far as punishment of dismissal from services is concerned, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. But, additional punishment of payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and recovery of Rs. 14,000/- from the salary of the petitioner appears to be disproportionate, excessive and harsh to the proved charges. 9. In view of the discussions made herein-above, the impugned order of punishment dated 02.06.2005 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order on the quantum of punishment, taking into the account the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.