JUDGMENT 1. The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12 May 2015. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has, while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, set aside an order of termination from service dated 9 September 2002, an appellate order dated 27 January 2005 and has granted reinstatement with fifty percent back wages, holding that the termination on the ground of alleged misconduct was a disproportionate penalty. However, the learned Single Judge has imposed a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. 2. The respondent was a Class-III employee of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur. On 10 May 1990, the respondent was suspended pending a disciplinary proceeding. Admittedly, an enquiry was held and on the basis of an enquiry report, the services of the respondent were terminated on 13 December 1990. The respondent carried the matter in appeal. On 31 March 1992, the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, came to the conclusion that the termination was harsh and imposed a penalty for the stoppage of annual increment. A charge-sheet was thereafter, issued to the respondent on 5 July 2001. Three charges were levelled against the respondent. The first charge was that the respondent had failed to obey the lawful order of the President of the Nagar Palika Parishad stating that unless his request for the grant of leave and for the payment of an amount of Rs.5000/- from his provident fund was granted, he would not comply with the orders of his superiors. The second charge was that when the respondent was sought to be served with an order of suspension dated 15 January 2000, he declined to accept the order and made an endorsement thereon that he would not hand over charge and if the almirah in his custody was broken open, the respondent would not be responsible for the same. The third charge was in regard to the failure of the respondent to discharge his election duties. 3. The charge of misconduct was enquired into. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 17 January 2002. Following the report of the Enquiry Officer, a notice to show cause was issued to the respondent on 1 February 2002 to which, he submitted a reply on 17 February 2002. The respondent was allowed a personal hearing in response to the notice to show cause. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 17 January 2002. Following the report of the Enquiry Officer, a notice to show cause was issued to the respondent on 1 February 2002 to which, he submitted a reply on 17 February 2002. The respondent was allowed a personal hearing in response to the notice to show cause. Thereafter, an order was passed on 9 September 2002, terminating the services of the respondent. Against the order of termination, the respondent filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division on 27 January 2005. The respondent then filed a writ petition to challenge the order of termination and the order of the appellate authority. 4. In the writ petition which was filed by the respondent, essentially the challenge was on two grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by mala fides. Secondly, it was urged that the termination was not commensurate with the charges which had been established. A counter affidavit was filed by the Executive Officer of the Nagar Palika Parishad, controverting the submissions of the respondents. The charge of mala fides, which was based on the change of the Enquiry Officer, was denied on the ground that it was upon the transfer of the Enquiry Officer that a fresh nomination was necessitated. Similarly, it was submitted that the enquiry had been held in consonance with the principles of natural justice after furnishing full opportunity to the respondent and hence, there was no ground to hold that the termination was unlawful or illegal. It was also sought to be urged that there is an alternative remedy of appeal before the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal. 5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate to the charges and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The entire reasoning of the learned Single Judge, after adverting to the charges, is contained only in the following observations: "Coming to the case in hand, this Court is of the view that the termination of the delinquent official is not commensurate with his guilt and as such terminating his service appears to be grossly disproportionate and the same was against the principle of natural justice. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fairplay in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, I am of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. No doubt, the extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. Therefore, taking the totality of the circumstances into account, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 27.1.2005 as well as the order dated 09.09.2002 are too harsh which could not be sustained under the present facts and circumstances of the case and are accordingly quashed." 6. The order of the learned Single Judge thereafter, proceeds to allow the writ petition by granting reinstatement with fifty percent back wages. However, the learned Single Judge has directed the imposition of a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. 7. We find merit in the submission, which has been urged on behalf of the appellants, that there is virtually no discussion at all on why the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the punishment of termination was disproportionate. Evidently, the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the finding of misconduct since a punishment has been imposed by the order impugned. 8. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the charges of misconduct were serious, involving insubordination. Evidently, the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the finding of misconduct since a punishment has been imposed by the order impugned. 8. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the charges of misconduct were serious, involving insubordination. Moreover, in a detailed order passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, the past conduct of the respondent was noted where, the respondent had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and had been held guilty of misconduct on a previous occasion. This, it was submitted, was also adverted to in the counter affidavit filed by the Nagar Palika Parishad but has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 9. As we have noted, there was virtually no factual foundation in the petition to support the allegation that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice. The only grounds of challenge were of mala fides (which has not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge) and in regard to the punishment being disproportionate. How the punishment is disproportionate has not been considered and all that we find in the order, is a conclusion without any reasoning. 10. The learned Single Judge was also in error in suo motu imposing a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. In such cases, it is well settled, that even where the Court comes to a conclusion that the punishment is disproportionate, what should be the proper punishment is a matter for the disciplinary authority to determine. The power of the disciplinary authority cannot be taken over by the Court by imposing punishment on its own. 11. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is unsustainable and would have to be set aside. The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12 May 2015 is, accordingly, set aside. However, since we have come to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge has in substance furnished no reasons while allowing the writ petition, we deem it appropriate and proper to restore the writ petition to the file of the learned Single Judge for a fresh consideration of the challenges to the order of termination. Writ-A No.13995 of 2005 is, accordingly, restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. Writ-A No.13995 of 2005 is, accordingly, restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for disposal afresh. Since the writ petition was pending for a considerable amount of time, we request the learned Single Judge to endeavor an expeditious disposal of the writ petition. 12. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.