Judgment : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet on 11.8.2008 alleging that on 28.7.2008 while he was on duty, the Inspection Team found that 6 persons were travelling without ticket, whereas, the fare from those passengers had already been received. An enquiry was initiated. The petitioner accepted the charges and requested for closure of the enquiry. His confessional statement was recorded on 22.8.2008. The respondents found the petitioner guilty and awarded punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect as well as forfeiture of salary during the period of suspension with a fine of Rs.12,000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appropriate Authority. The order of penalty was set aside but imposing punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was upheld and appeal was dismissed on 14.9.2010. Aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. However, the claim of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.1.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised only two arguments. The first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for setting aside the impugned order imposing punishment and the order of the Tribunal, vide which, his claim was dismissed is that the confessional statement of the petitioner was taken under duress with the promise that a nominal punishment will be awarded. The second argument raised is that the punishment is on the higher side. With respect to the first argument, it is evident from the order of the Tribunal that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that the said confessional statement was taken under duress or that any false promise was extended to him. Even before this Court, no such evidence or document has been placed on record to show that the petitioner was in any way pressurized to make a confessional statement. In case, the petitioner had not committed any offence, there was no occasion for him to admit the guilt knowing the consequences of such admission. The argument that the punishment is on the higher side, too, has no merit. It is settled proposition of law that in the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope of interference is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin Vs. The argument that the punishment is on the higher side, too, has no merit. It is settled proposition of law that in the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope of interference is limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 summarised the principles for interference in the quantum of compensation in para 16 which reads as under:- “(a) When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities; (b) The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority; (c) Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court;- (d) Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. (e) The only exception to the principle stated in para (d) above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the Doctrine of Equality when it is found that the concerned employee and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” In the case in hand, the charges proved against the petitioner are serious. He was found guilty of embezzlement. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” In the case in hand, the charges proved against the petitioner are serious. He was found guilty of embezzlement. The petitioner has got away only with punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and one grade increment without cumulative effect as well as forfeiture of salary of the suspension period. Hence, applying the test laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow K. Gramin (supra), no ground for interference is made out in the order of punishment. Dismissed accordingly.