JUDGMENT : A proven thief seeks to question the basis on which his guilt was established and claims that the punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to his act of misconduct. The head of a Christian convent in the Kharibari area sought an electric connection from the Kharibari Group Electricity Supply Office. The petitioner was then the Station Superintendent of such office. The evidence proves beyond doubt that on July 22, 1999 the petitioner visited the convent together with another employee of the present Distribution Company and demanded money from the head of the convent for providing the electricity connection. The evidence has established that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was obtained by the petitioner without immediately issuing any receipt for such payment. The sum of Rs.20,000/- was part of a total amount of Rs.35,000/-that the petitioner apparently told the convent or its personnel that would be necessary for providing the connection. On July 24, 1999 four electric poles were carried by cycle van to the convent or thereabouts for the electricity connection to be provided from the nearest point. The connection was thereafter effected. Upon the petitioner demanding the balance payment of Rs.15,000/-, the convent insisted on a receipt being issued for the initial payment of Rs.20,000/-; but the petitioner failed to issue any receipt. A further sum of Rs.1440/-was obtained by the petitioner from the convent against a receipt apparently for preparing an agreement between the predecessor of the Distribution Company and the convent for supply of electricity. A charge-sheet was issued with several charges, including illegal gratification, on October 5, 1999. The immediate reaction of the petitioner was to aggressively deal with the matter by filing a petition in this court for challenging the show-cause notice. Such petition was dismissed for default and was restored and permitted to be amended at a stage when the order of punishment had already been passed. Such earlier petition was disposed of by an order of February 20, 2014 by permitting the petitioner to canvass all grounds available to him in the domestic appeal. Long prior thereto, however, the inquiry report was furnished on December 7, 2002. A copy of the report was forwarded to the petitioner and his comments were sought on the findings rendered by the inquiry officer. Long prior thereto, however, the inquiry report was furnished on December 7, 2002. A copy of the report was forwarded to the petitioner and his comments were sought on the findings rendered by the inquiry officer. The petitioner’s primary response to the detailed recording of evidence and findings of the inquiry officer was that such officer was biased against him. The disciplinary authority considered such charge levelled against the inquiry officer by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority reassessed the evidence and after a detailed discussion held that there was no merit in the petitioner’s contention that the inquiry officer was biased or prejudiced against the petitioner. On appreciating the evidence before the evidence at the inquiry stage, the disciplinary authority concluded that the findings were valid and the charges, inter alia, of the petitioner having received illegal gratification and having committed further acts of illegality, had been established. The disciplinary authority reasoned that since the faith of the public in the Distribution Company would be eroded if personnel as the petitioner continued in service, the petitioner deserved the exemplary punishment of dismissal from service. Prior to the petitioner preferring an appeal before the domestic forum, the petitioner took a chance in reviving the dismissed writ petition and amending the same to incorporate the events subsequent to the institution of the earlier petition. However, such attempt came to nought as this court did not interfere with the order of punishment but merely left the petitioner free to pursue his right of appeal. The appeal was taken up by a committee in accordance with the rules of the Distribution Company. The committee briefly deliberately upon the facts and found that there could be no element of doubt as to the petitioner’s guilt and proven misconduct. The appellate committee, thereafter, discussed the propriety of the ultimate punishment being awarded to the petitioner and concurred with the reasons given by the disciplinary authority in upholding the punishment. The petitioner has filed this routine petition with grounds such as the inquiry officer having failed to appreciate the defence that had been put up by the petitioner and the disciplinary authority having glossed over the petitioner’s charge of bias and prejudice brought against the inquiry officer. The final argument, as his usually the case in such matters, is that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the act of misconduct and it is shocking. The final argument, as his usually the case in such matters, is that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the act of misconduct and it is shocking. The elaborate discussion of the facts by the inquiry officer traced how such officer applied his mind to the matters in issue and arrived at the cogent findings recorded in conclusion. The disciplinary authority was not required to go into the detailed facts, but merely assess whether procedural propriety had been followed by the inquiry officer and the facts tallied with the charges to lead to the conclusion of misconduct. The disciplinary authority went over the entire set of facts as an authority of first instance, primarily because the petitioner thought that the inquiry officer was biased against the petitioner and also since the disciplinary authority thought that the misconduct warranted a punishment in the form of the dismissal of the petitioner from service. In the context of the elaborate discussion and consideration of the facts by the authorities at the first two tiers, the appellate authority was not required to undertake a de novo appraisal of the evidence for endorsing the concurrent findings of the two authorities below. The appellate authority was required primarily to consider whether the punishment awarded was proportionate to the proven misconduct. The appellate authority added to the reasons furnished in the order of punishment by the disciplinary authority. There appears to be no infirmity, procedural or otherwise, at any of the levels. The petitioner’s dismissal from service on the basis of the facts as established does not shock the conscience of the court or otherwise appear to be disproportionate. W.P. 30615 (W) of 2015 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.