JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent. The respondent, who is original petitioner had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1886 of 2005, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by this appellant-management dated 23rd February, 2004 was quashed and set aside. Hence, the original respondent has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX: • The respondent was working as Class-IV employee with this appellant. • He had indulged into a grave misconduct of free fight with another workmen within the factory premises of this appellant. • This free fight had taken place between 4-5 employees. They were given charge sheet and ultimately, after holding departmental inquiry, this respondent and other workmen were dismissed from the services vide order dated 21st September, 1997. This is Order No. I. • The workmen including this respondent/preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R), which was decided vide order dated 25th January, 2000 and it was held that the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the matter was remanded for re-appreciation of quantum of punishment. • Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, L.P.A. No. 29 of 2001 was preferred by this appellant-management. This LPA was dismissed vide order dated 13.6.2001. Hence, now the appellant had to re-appreciate/re-decide the quantum of punishment, in stead of dismissal. Thus, this appellant-management had to take a decision for imposing the punishment except dismissal. • The appellant-management re-appreciated the quantum of punishment as per the direction given in CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R) and now another order was passed on 14th September, 2000 discharging the respondent (delinquent) from the services in stead of, dismissal from the services. The effect will be that the respondent will now get the retirement dues. This is Order No. II. • Now this replaced order of punishment, was also challenged in W.P.(S) No. 2665 of 2001, which was again allowed by this Court vide order dated 20th November, 2003 and again the matter was remanded for re-appreciation of quantum of punishment. •By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, now this time, no Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the management, but, they thought it fit to pass 3rd order of Punishment. •By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, now this time, no Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the management, but, they thought it fit to pass 3rd order of Punishment. This is order dated 23rd February, 2004, whereby, the order of re-reinstatement was passed, but, without back wages. This order is Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. This is Order No. III. • Again the respondent filed W.P.(S) No. 1886 of 2005 challenging the Order No. -III, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18th April, 2013 and 50% back wages has been awarded by the learned Single Judge. • It further appears from the facts of the case that one more employee, namely Sri. Radha Kant Jha was also given similar treatment, who preferred WP(S) No. 5070 of 2005, wherein this Court passed an order dated 27.01.2010 in which no back wages was granted. This order is Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. •Thus, instead of being guided by this order dated 27th January, 2010 in WPS No. 5070 of 2005, which was confirmed in LPA No. 292 of 2010 vide order dated 29th September, 2010, the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1886 of 2005 granted 50% back wages and hence, the respondent has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 3. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: • Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the respondent (original petitioner) who was employed with the appellant as Class-IV employee, was dismissed from the services for the grave misconduct vide order dated 21st September, 1997. Thereafter writ petition was preferred being CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R), which was decided vide order dated 25th January, 2000 wherein, it was observed by this Court that quantum of punishment imposed upon the respondent (original petitioner-delinquent) was excessive and hence, the matter was remanded for re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. This order was also confirmed in L.P.A. No. 29 of 2001 as L.P.A. No. 29 of 2001 was dismissed on 13th June, 2001. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that thereafter Order No. II was passed on 14th September, 2000 and the punishment inflicted upon the respondent was reduced from dismissal to discharge from the services. Thus, the respondent was entitled to get the retirement benefits. • It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that thereafter Order No. II was passed on 14th September, 2000 and the punishment inflicted upon the respondent was reduced from dismissal to discharge from the services. Thus, the respondent was entitled to get the retirement benefits. • This punishment was also challenged by way of another writ petition being WPS No. 2665 of 2001 and again, this appellant was directed to re-consider the quantum of punishment. This writ petition was decided on 20th November, 2003. • Counsel for the appellant further submitted that once again the quantum of punishment was reduced and now the Order No. III was passed by this appellant on 23rd February, 2004 and now the respondent was reinstated without back wages. This order was again challenged in writ petition being WPS No. 1886 of 2005 and this Court has granted 50% back wages vide order dated 18th April, 2013, without appreciating the fact that initially there was a free fight in which more than one employees were involved including this respondent and another workmen. The punishment was inflicted upon another workman, who had preferred WPS No. 5070 of 2005 which was decided on 27th January, 2010 wherein this Court has not granted any back wages, but, only reinstatement. This decision has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. • It is further submitted by the appellant that the punishment inflicted has now been reduced from dismissal to discharge and from discharge to reinstatement, with no back wages. Looking to the nature of misconduct, there was a free fight between the employees and other employees have also been awarded punishment, which has been approved by this Court and now vide Order No. III dated 23rd February, 2004, the respondent has been reinstated without back wages. In fact, the respondent-workman has not worked from 21st September, 1997 onwards. Even otherwise also, he is not entitled for back wages, nor the punishment can be said to be unreasonably excessive, nor it can be lebelled shockingly disproportionate punishment. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th April, 2013 in WPS No. 1886 of 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18th April, 2013 in WPS No. 1886 of 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. ARGUMENTS CANVASSED BY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT (ORIGINAL PETITIONER): • Counsel appearing for the respondent (original petitioner) has submitted that the quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant vide order dated 23rd February, 2004 is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. Constantly, the guidance has been given by this Court, but, the appellant-management has not appreciated the earlier orders passed by this Court in CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R), nor the appellant has properly appreciated the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 2665 of 2001. In fact, when this respondent was reinstated, there was no fault on the part of the respondent in not discharging his duties from 21st September, 1997 onwards. The respondent was ready and willing to do the work, but, because, of the orders passed by this appellant, the respondent was abstained from doing the work and hence, 50% back wages has been awarded by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 5. REASONS: Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1886 of 2005 dated 18th April, 2013, mainly for the following facts and reasons; (i) The respondent (original petitioner) had indulged into free fight with other colleague employees within the factory premises of this appellant. One workman, namely, Dinesh Singh was caught hold of his neck, thrown on the ground and was beaten mercilessly with fists and legs. However, due to timely intervention of Jogendra Singh and Arvind Dubey, the life of Dinesh Singh could be saved. The misconduct committed by the respondent on 21st September, 1997 was a grave misconduct and this respondent was summarily dismissed from the services by using power under Clause 28 of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the workmen of BCCL (Appellant). This order was challenged in writ petition being CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R) and this Court vide order dated 25th January, 2000 directed this appellant to re-appreciate the quantum of punishment. This order was challenged in writ petition being CWJC No. 239 of 1998(R) and this Court vide order dated 25th January, 2000 directed this appellant to re-appreciate the quantum of punishment. This order was confirmed in LPA No. 29 of 2001 as the LPA preferred by this appellant was dismissed vide order dated 13th June, 2001. Thereafter, the quantum of punishment was reduced vide Order No-II passed by the management on 14th September, 2000. Now, in stead of dismissal from the services, lessor punishment was imposed i.e. discharge from the services. Now the respondent can get the retirement dues. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that this punishment was also challenged in WPS No. 2665 of 2001 which was decided on 20th November, 2003 whereby, again the observations were made by this Court that quantum of punishment may be further reduced. Now, by virtue of the aforesaid order, this appellant has further reduced the quantum of punishment and Order No-III was passed on 23rd February, 2004 and now the respondent was reinstated without back wages. (iii) This Order No. III was again challenged by way of writ petition being WPS No. 1886 of 2005 and this Court has awarded, vide order dated 18th April 2013, 50% of the back wages. (iv) It appears that the punishment inflicted upon vide Order No. III dated 23rd February, 2004 cannot be lebelled as shockingly disproportionate, nor it can be lebelled as unreasonably excessive. Free fight by the respondent with another employee and that too, within the factory premises of this appellant and by timely intervention of two other employees, the life of Dinesh Singh was saved, this was a grave misconduct on the part of the respondent. Looking to this misconduct, the punishment inflicted upon him, cannot be lebelled as shockingly disproportionate. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while deciding WPS No. 1886 of 2005 and hence, the said judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. (v) It further appears that another workman was also involved in the very same free fight, who was also punished-- by the management, who had also preferred WP(S) No. 5070 of 2005, which was decided by this Court on 27th January, 2010 in which the order of reinstatement was passed without back wages. (v) It further appears that another workman was also involved in the very same free fight, who was also punished-- by the management, who had also preferred WP(S) No. 5070 of 2005, which was decided by this Court on 27th January, 2010 in which the order of reinstatement was passed without back wages. This was also affirmed in LPA No. 292 of 2010, which was dismissed vide order dated 29th September, 2010 (Annexure-3 to the memo of this LPA). Thus, similarly situated another workman was reinstated without back wages and the order was affirmed in LPA No. 292 of 2010. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. (vi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 106 , in paragraph no. 14, as under:— “14. Thus, in our view entering the school premises in working hours i.e. 11.30 a.m. in an inebriated condition and thereafter forcibly entering into the Principal's room would constitute a serious misconduct. Penalty of removal for such a misconduct cannot be treated as disproportionate. It does not seem to be unreasonable and does not shock the conscience of the court. Though it does not appear to be excessive either, but even if it were to be so, merely because the court feels that penalty should have been lighter than the one imposed, by itself is not a ground to interfere with the discretion of the disciplinary authorities. The penalty should not only be excessive but disproportionate as well, that too to the extent that it shocks the conscience of the court and the court is forced to find it as totally unreasonable and arbitrary thereby offending the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is stated at the cost of the repetition that discretion lies with the disciplinary/appellate authority to impose a particular penalty keeping in view the nature and gravity of charge. It is stated at the cost of the repetition that discretion lies with the disciplinary/appellate authority to impose a particular penalty keeping in view the nature and gravity of charge. Once it is found that the penalty is not shockingly disproportionate, merely because in the opinion of the Court lesser punishment could have been more justified, cannot be a reason to interfere with the said penalty.” (Emphasis Supplied) (vii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 , in paragraph nos. 19, 19.1 to 19.5, as under:— “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. 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. 19.2. 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. 19.3. 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. 19.4. 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. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were 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 employee concerned 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. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned 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 the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1886 of 2005 dated 18th April, 2013. Resultantly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.