JUDGMENT : Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. 1. The respondent was an officer of the West Bengal State Electricity Board subsequently renamed as West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. He faced a disciplinary proceeding that ultimately resulted in a punishment of reduction of pay and reversion to a lower post. 2. The facts reveal, one Nazrul Islam was constantly pressing the Electricity Company for a new electricity connection. His grievance was not being met for a long time. His application had been pending since April 23, 2002. The problem arose as the low-tension line was drawn over and above his premises. Unless and until the said line was shifted the connection could not be given. Nazrul also applied for shifting vide application dated May 08, 2002. Despite such application being made, the Electricity Company was neither shifting the overhead line nor giving him the new connection. Nazrul was really suffering, as his daughter-in-law was critically ill. Kashinath was transferred to Sadhanpur when Nazrul met him and explained his misery. Being sympathetic to him he asked the lineman Nag to make an inspection. Pertinent to note, Nag had earlier inspected the premises and suggested shifting of the overhead line. Needless to mention, Nag repeated his earlier report and submitted it to Kashinath. Kashinath found it difficult to give connection immediately unless shifting was done. He adopted the alternative mode and gave the connection from another source without removing the overhead connection. The authority proceeded against him. We have closely examined the charge-sheet. We do not find any allegation of illegal gratification. The authority would only allege, he unusually favoured Sk. Nazrul. We fully agree with the authority. It is not clear, whether it was for oblique purpose or an error of judgment where humane approach was made overlooking the norms and procedure as per the guidelines. The enquiry report obviously would suggest, charges were proved. We need not go into such aspect as we find from the facts that the connection had been given from another source without removing the overhead line. It was an admitted fact that would prove the charge brought against him. 3. The authority gave him the punishment of reversion. Kashinath approached the learned Judge by filing a writ petition alleging various irregularities in the process. 4. We have carefully gone through the painstaking judgment of the learned Single Judge. It was an admitted fact that would prove the charge brought against him. 3. The authority gave him the punishment of reversion. Kashinath approached the learned Judge by filing a writ petition alleging various irregularities in the process. 4. We have carefully gone through the painstaking judgment of the learned Single Judge. With deepest regard we have for His Lordship, and with all humility, may we say, the learned Judge possibly missed out the real issue. If we look to the facts, we cannot find any fault with the process. On that score we beg to differ with His Lordship. We are, however, on the punishment apropo the charges brought and proved against him. 5. As observed hereinbefore, it was nothing but an error of judgment when Kashinath made a humane approach ignoring the guidelines. In our view, he should not have overlooked the danger aspect in keeping the overhead line alive particularly, in a house whether there would be another line connection. Mr. Panja, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, rightly contends, it could result in a disastrous situation. 6. It is not the case of the Electricity Company, Kashinath did so for oblique purpose. It is also not the case of the Electricity Company, Kashinath had a bad track record. 7. Taking a sum total of the situation, we feel, the punishment is a little harsh and we wish to reduce the same. 8. The incident occurred in 2002. Thirteen years have gone in between. If we remand the matter back to the authority for passing a fresh order of punishment, it would again delay the process. Hence, we modify the punishment by directing the Electricity Company to stop one yearly increment that would be denied to Kashinath for one year without any cumulative effect. 9. The order of punishment is thus modified. The judgment and order of the learned Judge stands modified accordingly. 10. We, through this judgment and order, would caution Kashinath, while dealing with such type of case, he must not overlook the safety and security of the consumers. He must be cautious in future. 11. The appeal is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. 12. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible. I agree.