JUDGMENT : S. N. PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under prayer has been made to quash the orders dtd.05.06.2007 and 22.12.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority – opposite party no.1 and the Appellate Authority – opposite party no.4 as also for issuance of direction upon the opposite parties to release all consequential benefits thereof. 2. The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Watcher at Raghunathpur Saw-Mill and Depot where he was assigned to watch and ward duty at main gate from 08.07.1999 to 13.8.1999, was subjected to a departmental proceeding for commission of irregularities of causing loss to the Corporation to a tune of Rs.18,514/- in connivance of the staff of Raghunathpur Depot, gross negligence in duty and misconduct. The petitioner has denied the allegation, as such he was subjected to face enquiry. The enquiry officer has found the charge proved and accordingly the disciplinary authority, while accepting the finding of the enquiry officer, has inflicted two punishments, i.e. (i) The period of suspension be treated as such; and (ii) He shall be brought to the minimum of present scale of pay with immediate and cumulative effect. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, has approached before the appellate authority, the appellate authority vide order dtd.22.12.2007, has reversed the order of punishment so far as it relates to second punishment by substituting it from bring to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect to that of censure, however, the first punishment, i.e. the suspension period be treated as such has been directed to be remain same. 3. 3. The petitioner is before this court by challenging the first punishment on the ground that the appellate authority has taken into consideration of the finding of the enquiry officer wherein it has come that the petitioner who was a low paid watcher in the depot had acted upon the instructions of his higher authority and keeping this fact into consideration the second punishment of bringing to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect has been reversed to that of the punishment of censure, hence the order of punishment of treating the period of suspension as such ought to have been reviewed by the appellate authority on the ground that whatever irregularities he has committed, i.e. upon instruction of the higher authority, but by not doing so, the petitioner has been put to substantial financial loss. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said punishment is disproportionate to the offence committed by the petitioner, as such the same needs interference by this court. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 SC 75 . 4. On the other hand, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Odisha Forest Development Corporation (in short OFDC) has submitted on the strength of counter affidavit that the petitioner while working as watcher at Raghunathpur Depot from 08.07.1999 to 13.8.1999 caused loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.18,514/- by fraudulent act and gross negligence in duty, as such he was subjected to departmental proceeding in which the charge has been proved by the enquiry officer. The finding of the enquiry officer has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and accordingly the punishment of treating the period of suspension as such as also bringing him to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect has been imposed. The petitioner being aggrieved with the same has approached to the appellate authority wherein the order of punishment of bringing him to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect has been reversed to that of punishment of censure but the punishment of treating the period of suspension as such has been directed to be remain same. Learned Sr. Learned Sr. Counsel, while rebutting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in his defence reply has disputed the allegation but subsequently, in course of enquiry, he has admitted his guilt by submitting that he has allowed the truck loaded with timber to go outside the depot without making any entry in the register kept in the gate and he has done so on the basis of instruction given by the Sub-Divisional Manager, hence according to him, he himself has admitted the guilt. He further submits that the duty of a watcher is of much importance and he, being at the gate, is primarily to look after the property of the depot so that there may not be any illegal transportation of the timbers lying in the depot. If the petitioner, being an watcher, has acceded to the instruction of the higher authorities, it cannot be a ground to excuse him from the charges, rather in the public administration everyone, i.e. right from bottom to top level have been assigned with their duties and it is expected from each and every persons discharging their duties to do their duty with all diligence, honestly and sincerely, but the petitioner has failed to discharge his duty which led to pecuniary loss to the Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, rebutting this argument, has submitted that the loss sustained by the Corporation has already been compensated, hence on this ground also the case of the petitioner may be considered. 6. Rebutting this, it has been submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel representing the Corporation that the quantum of amount or its compensation is not material rather in the departmental proceeding the conduct of an employee is to be seen and if it is found that he has discharged his duty contrary to his conduct, then it will amounts to misconduct and for that the said employee is liable to be punished for commission of misconduct, hence the petitioner is not to be given any relief on this account. He further rebutted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of treating the period of suspension as such is not proportionate to the offence committed since the period was put under suspension for five years, hence he will not be entitled to get the regular salary save and except the suspension allowance for the said period as such withholding the monetary benefit for a period of five years is highly disproportionate, hence the same needs to be taken into consideration by this court. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation has submitted that the petitioner was put under suspension for five years, that is during pendency of the departmental proceeding but he has never questioned the prolonged suspension and under the statutory provision he was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and thereafter during pendency of the departmental proceeding and when he has been inflicted with the punishment on the charge being found proved, as such he cannot be allowed to be given the full salary for the said period. He submits that the question of making payment of full salary will only arise if a delinquent employee is completely exonerated from the charges either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority but here the petitioner has not been exonerated from the charges, rather the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been reversed by the appellate authority, meaning thereby the ingredients of misconduct has remain there and for that reason he cannot be allowed to be given full salary for the period of suspension. He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and on appreciation of rival submission it is evident that the petitioner, while holding the post of watcher, has departmentally been proceeded for dereliction and negligence in duty and causing loss to the Corporation due to his misconduct. The enquiry officer has found the charges proved on his admission wherein he has admitted that on the instructions of the higher officer he has allowed the vehicle to go outside the depot without making any entry in the register kept at the gate. The enquiry officer has found the charges proved on his admission wherein he has admitted that on the instructions of the higher officer he has allowed the vehicle to go outside the depot without making any entry in the register kept at the gate. Although the petitioner has taken different plea in his defence reply, but in course of enquiry he has taken ‘U’ turn and admitted the guilt. Accordingly the enquiry officer has given its finding by proving the charge. The disciplinary authority while accepting the finding has inflicted two punishment, i.e. (i) the period of suspension is to be treated as such; and (ii) the petitioner be brought to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the appellate authority as provided under the statute, the appellate authority has taken into consideration the finding of the enquiry report wherein it has been stipulated that he has done the misconduct on the basis of the instruction given by the higher authority and thereby the appellate authority has reversed the punishment to bring him to the minimum pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect to that of punishment of censure, but however directed the punishment to remain there, i.e. treating the period of suspension as such. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision of the appellate authority whereby and where under the period of suspension has been treated as such, is before this court by way of this writ petition on the grounds mentioned above. This court, before dealing with the grounds taken by the parties, has thought it proper to discuss the jurisdiction of this court sitting under Article 226 of the constitution of India to exercise the power of judicial review, in this respect reference of recent judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Others Vrs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 wherein a guideline has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in order to make interference with the order of punishment which is being quoted herein below:- “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No.1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. The enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. The enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. The conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. The disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. The disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. The finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) Re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) Interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in a accordance with law; (iii) Go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) Go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) Interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) Correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) Go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” It is evident from the paragraphs of the judgment quoted above that the position has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of exercising the power of judicial review by the High Courts. (vi) Correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) Go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” It is evident from the paragraphs of the judgment quoted above that the position has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of exercising the power of judicial review by the High Courts. This court has examined the factual aspect of this case and has found that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of making interference by this court sitting under Article 226 of the constitution of India in exercise of the power of judicial review. The petitioner has precisely argued in this case regarding the quantum of punishment that is treating the period of suspension as such. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as watcher and the duty of a watcher is of utmost importance, i.e. to look into the entrance and the persons going out from the depot so that there may not be any illegal transaction of any timber lying in the depot to which the petitioner was a watcher discharging his duty at the gate of the depot. The timber loaded in the vehicle has been transported from the gate where the petitioner was posted and where he has failed in discharging his duty by either by not restraining the vehicle rather he has allowed them to go out without seeing any cash memo or challan leading to pecuniary loss to the Corporation, as such he has been subjected to departmental proceeding in which he has been found to be guilty and the punishment has been imposed. The petitioner’s main argument is that the amount of pecuniary loss since been compensated, as such putting the petitioner in financial loss by not disbursing the full salary for the period of five years is harsh, hence the power of judicial review has been sought to be exercised by this court. It is not in dispute that the power of judicial review can be exercised by the High Courts in the matter of punishment in the departmental proceeding if the punishment is not commensurate with the offence committed, i.e. if the punishment is disproportionate to the offence committed. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vrs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. (supra) to strengthen his argument, this court is of the view that the proposition since is well settled of exercising the power of judicial review so far as quantum of punishment is concerned, but the fact of the said case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case for the reason that the fact in the said case is that on account of unauthorized absent for six months, the delinquent employee in the said case was terminated and as such the Hon’ble Apex court has been pleased to hold that terminating an employee from service for unauthorized absence of six months is very harsh, hence reversed the punishment. But here in the instant case the petitioner, while working as watcher, has failed in discharging his duty and he was posted as watcher in a forest depot where the timber is being kept. The duty of the watcher under the statute is to look after the timber so that it may not be illegally transported by anyone and in discharging that duty the petitioner has failed since he has allowed the vehicle to go outside the depot without verifying the cash memo and the chalan. The petitioner has taken the plea that on the instruction of the higher officials he has done this and as such he may not be subjected to such harsh punishment and it has been taken note by the appellate authority but this argument, according to the considered view of this court, has got no substance for the reason that in the public administration every public servant either the Class-IV or the top hierarchy is subjected to some accountability and responsibility and if they are failing in discharging their duty, it will amounts to misconduct. Even in a case where a higher authority has directed the watcher and he being in the lowest in the hierarchy should have been brought to the notice of the higher authority in the department apprising the situation to show his bona fide but this part of the action has not been taken by the petitioner, as such at this stage if he is saying that on the instruction of the higher authority he has done and for that he may be excused, cannot be accepted by this court, moreover the order of punishment cannot be reversed merely on the ground of sympathy whatever may be the result if there is misconduct the public servant committed such misconduct has to be dealt with so that it may not be repeated in future by him or others. Here it is important to note that punishing an employee or anybody for an offence is to give message to the society or the public servant working in the department that the thing may not be repeated and if it will done they will also be handled in the said situation so that the illegality / irregularity may not be repeated by anyone, meaning thereby, punishing an employee for commission of an offence is a message that if any illegal thing would be done they will be punished. This is the purpose of punishing an employee or anyone who commits an offence. 8. The admitted position here in this case is that the punishment of bringing the petitioner to the minimum of pay scale with immediate and cumulative effect has been revered to that of punishment of censure but so far as treating the period of suspension as such, the petitioner cannot be given any advantage by directing the authorities to disburse the full salary, otherwise it will amounts to giving premium to the petitioner and it can only be on account of sympathy as the argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that since he is a watcher, it is very harsh for him that the arrears of salary for such a long period has been retained, it is settled that merely on sympathy, no order can be passed reversing the order of punishment, rather the nature of allegation and gravity is to be seen. It has also been pointed out by the authorities that the higher officials who have instructed the petitioner have also been proceeded departmentally and punished, hence on that ground also the argument of the petitioner cannot be accepted by this court. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.