JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. The remand ordered by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per Ext. P4 in respect of the disciplinary proceedings finalized against the respondents imposing a major penalty and affirmed by the appellate authority, for causing the matter to be reconsidered; holding that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct, is the subject matter of challenge in these Original Petitions. 2. O.P.(CAT) No.3229 of 2011 arises from the verdict passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No.895 of 2009, whereas the cause of action in the other case arises from O.A. No.899 of 2009. The sequence of events, nature of insinuation levelled against and the outcome are almost similar, but for the fact that in O.P.(CAT) No.3229 of 2001, only nine charges were involved, whereas in the other case, altogether 12 charges were levelled against the respondent/delinquent employee. In the said circumstances, O.P.(CAT) No.3229 of 2011 is treated as the lead case and the reference is made to the parties and proceedings, as referred to in the said Original Petition, except to the extent where separate reference is made, depending upon the context. 3. Heard Sri. Vineeth Komalachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri. Govinda Swami, who entered appearance on behalf of the party respondents. 4. The sequence of events revealed from the proceeding is that the 1st respondent employee, who was working as the Senior Auditor in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, was proceeded against based on some misconduct committed on different dates, for allegedly participating in a 'dharna' conducted in the office premises during the office hours shouting slogans and also causing blockage to the authorities. It was accordingly, that Annexure A3 memo came to be issued on 16.04.2007 referring to the incident which occurred on 12.01.2007. It was stated that the first respondent had participated in the demonstration as above at about 4.40 p.m. in the office premises and remained there till 5.30 p.m. Ultimately, the Police had to be summoned to the place and accordingly, the first respondent along with others, who participated in the demonstration, were removed by the Police. 5. It was stated that the first respondent had participated in the demonstration as above at about 4.40 p.m. in the office premises and remained there till 5.30 p.m. Ultimately, the Police had to be summoned to the place and accordingly, the first respondent along with others, who participated in the demonstration, were removed by the Police. 5. On receipt of Annexure A3 memo, first respondent submitted Annexure A4 reply stating that the agitation was after the office hours and that the passage was never blocked and further that the Police had removed the persons assembled there only by 6.15 p.m. In relation to another similar incident occurred on 17.04.2007 at about 10.40 am in the office premises, Annexure A5 show cause notice came to be issued on 18.04.2007, seeking for explanation of the first respondent. This was responded as per Anenxure A6 reply dated 09.05.2007 pointing out that he was participating in the demonstration only after taking eligible leave and as such, there was no violation in any manner. According to the Department, the leave applied for and sanctioned was only for 'personal/domestic affairs' and as such, there was an instance of falsehood as well in seeking for and obtaining the leave and participating in the event, committing the misconduct. Annexure A7 is the yet another show cause notice issued on 06.06.2007 in respect of a similar instance occurred on 01.02.2007 at about 12.45 p.m. in front of the office of the Principal Accountant General and as to the shouting of slogans, adversely affecting the functioning of the office. Annexure A8 is the reply submitted by the first respondent, virtually admitting the participation, however, contending that such participation was only by 1 p.m. and not during the office hours. 6. After considering the explanation offered by the employee/first respondent, the competent authority issued Annexure A10 memo of charges on 20.08.2007 consolidating all the relevant charges arrayed as charge Nos. I to IX/Articles I to IX. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted, following the procedure for inflicting major penalty. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted Annexure A14 enquiry report on 22.07.2008. I to IX/Articles I to IX. Since the explanation was not satisfactory, a detailed enquiry was conducted, following the procedure for inflicting major penalty. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted Annexure A14 enquiry report on 22.07.2008. As per the said report, the enquiry officer found that though no sufficient proof was produced by the presenting officer, in respect of Articles I, II and III, by virtue of the admission given by the delinquent employee in respect of the show cause notice and also going by the version as given by the defence witnesses, the charge was held as proved in respect of the violation of Rule 3 (1) (iii) and 7 (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules']; however arriving at a finding that the alleged violation of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Rules was not proved. 7. The finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charges/Articles I to III 3 are in the following terms : “The Presenting Officer could not prove the presence of the Charged Official in the place of demonstration/agitation, to substantiate the charges as per items (i) to (iii) above. At the same time, as per the deposition dated 01.05.2008 Defence Witness I and Defence Witness II, the Charged Official was present in the section upto 5.30 PM. As per the deposition of Defence Witness II, no objectionable slogans were shouted personally against the Accountant General and his administration that can be termed as derogatory or defamatory. The fact remains true that the Charged Official was removed by the Police from the office premises at 6.15 PM. As per the oral evidence of the Charged Official in the self examination dated 21.05.2008 and also in his written brief dated 14.07.2008 the Charged Official has argued that he did not participate in the demonstration held on 12.01.2007. Eventhough the Charged Official in his letter dated 09/05/2007 (Ext. P2) has not directly stated that he had participated in the demonstration on 12/01/2007, the contents of the letter suggest that he had participated in a peaceful demonstration after 5.30 P.M. and he has also not denied his participation in the demonstration. But as per the Charge Sheet, there is no allegation that the Charged Official had participated in any activities from 5.40 PM to 6.15 PM. But as per the Charge Sheet, there is no allegation that the Charged Official had participated in any activities from 5.40 PM to 6.15 PM. However, based on the letter dated 09/05/2007 (Ext.P2) submitted by the Charged Official, his participation in a peaceful demonstration after 5.30 PM on 12/01/2007 has been proved considering the preponderance of probability in this case. Hence the charges under Articles I, II & III to the extent of participation of the Charged Official in a peaceful demonstration after 5.30 PM which resulted in his removal by the police have been proved.” 8. In respect of the charges at serial Nos. IV, V & VI, the enquiry officer arrived at almost similar finding, however, observing that 1/2 day casual leave' applied for by the delinquent official was to accompany his brother-in-law to the Secretariat to ascertain the position with regard to the scholarship application of his brother-in-law's son, who was an Engineering student at Jaipur, whereas as per Anenxrue A4 reply submitted by the delinquent employee in response to the show cause notice, it was stated that he had participated in the 'dharna' after availing leave as instructed by the office bearers of his association. It was accordingly, that a finding was rendered in the following terms : “No Prosecution Witness was presented in this case. However as pointed out by the Presenting Officer in his written brief dated 03.07.2008, since the Charged Official himself has admitted that he had participated in the dharna on 17/04/2007, by taking eligible leave as per his letter dated 09/05/2007 (Exhibit P5), I think that no further evidence is required to substantiate the charges under these articles. Further I consider that when the Charged Official was given an opportunity to represent his case to the Disciplinary Authority, the right occasion was when he submitted his reply on 09/05/2007. Hence there is no relevance in denying the admitted fact in subsequent statements in his self examination as well as in written brief. In view of the above, I am to conclude that the charges as per Articles IV, V & VI of the Articles of charge as per Annexure I of the charge sheet have been conclusively proved.” 9. Hence there is no relevance in denying the admitted fact in subsequent statements in his self examination as well as in written brief. In view of the above, I am to conclude that the charges as per Articles IV, V & VI of the Articles of charge as per Annexure I of the charge sheet have been conclusively proved.” 9. Coming to Articles VII, VIII and IX, the enquiry officer arrived at a similar finding, holding that said charges were also proved in the following terms : “The Presenting Officer was not able to prove the participation of the Charged Official in the demonstration at 12.45 PM on 01/06/2007, mainly due to absence of any Prosecution Witness or other documents. At the same time, the Charged Official himself has admitted his participation in the demonstration around 1 PM on the said date vide his oral statement in the sitting held on 21/05/2008. Hence participation of the Charged Official in the demonstration held on 01/06/2007 around 1 PM in front of the chamber of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) has been proved.” 10. On completion of the formalities, the disciplinary authority dealt with the matter and Anenxure A1 order was passed on 28.08.2008 concurring with the findings in the enquiry and in turn, holding that the delinquent employee was guilty of the charges levelled against him. It was accordingly, that a major punishment was imposed, in the following terms : “Now therefore, under the powers vested in me under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, I hereby impose a penalty of reduction to a lower stage by one stage from Rs.7600/- to Rs.7425/- in the time scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 for a period of two years with cumulative effect, with effect from 1.9.2008 on Shri. A Kunjuraman, Sr. Auditor. It is further directed that Shri A Kunjuraman will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of his pay. I further order that 17.4.2007 and 1.6.2007 will be treated as dies-non and shall not count for any purpose.” 11. Met with the situation, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. I further order that 17.4.2007 and 1.6.2007 will be treated as dies-non and shall not count for any purpose.” 11. Met with the situation, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The matter was dealt with elaborately by the appellate authority, who found that the subject matter of charges/Articles VII, VIII and IX had already considered by the competent authority earlier and 'warning' had been given to the employee in respect of the incident which occurred on 01.06.2007. In the said circumstances, the appellate authority observed that in respect of the same instance there cannot be any further punishment, which otherwise would involve double jeopardy and it was accordingly, that the finding and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in respect of the charges VII, VIII and IX were set aside, however upholding the finding and punishment imposed in respect of the other charges. 12. The first respondent sought to challenge the proceedings by filing O.A. before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal passed Ext. P4 order, whereby a finding was rendered to the effect that no misconduct was proved except the charge of participating in the 'dharna' on 11.04.2007 while on casual leave, which was availed by giving false reason and holding that it stood proved beyond doubt. Based on the said finding, the Tribunal observed that the major penalty imposed was quite disproportionate to the gravity of the proven charge and hence the matter required to be reconsidered by the appellate authority. It was accordingly, that Annexure A2 order passed by the appellate authority was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the quantum of penalty to be imposed, which in turn is under challenge before this Court. 13. The learned standing counsel for the petitioners submits that the observation made by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the verdict, as if enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority had held the first charge as not proved and that the Tribunal had concurred with the said finding is not correct. The learned counsel brought it to the notice of this Court as to the discussion made by the enquiring authority and also the disciplinary authority as to the sequence of events, participation of the first respondent/delinquent employee and as to the appreciation of the materials on record; in turn leading to the finding. The learned counsel brought it to the notice of this Court as to the discussion made by the enquiring authority and also the disciplinary authority as to the sequence of events, participation of the first respondent/delinquent employee and as to the appreciation of the materials on record; in turn leading to the finding. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in response to the three different show cause notices issued, replies were submitted by the first respondent as borne by Annexure A4, A6 and A8, whereby the factum of participation in the 'dharna' was conceded. It was further pointed out that the Enquiry Officer, though held that the presenting officer had not adduced any proof to substantiate the charge, the materials on record, including the admission made by the delinquent employee clearly established the guilt/misconduct on the part of the employee and it was accordingly, that the charges were held as proved in respect of Articles I, IV and VI. The disciplinary authority concurred with the said finding and as such, the observation made by the Tribunal to the contrary that, 'the Enquiry Authority as well as the Disciplinary Authority had not held the other charges as proved' is not correct. Similar is the position with regard to the observation made as to the sole charge stated as proved, as dealt with in paragraph 15 of the verdict. We find considerable force in the said submissions. 14. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that participation in the 'dharna' in the office premises stands conceded by virtue of the admissions made by the first respondent employee in Annexures A4, A6 and A8 replies submitted to the show cause notices. The learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the participation, though admitted in the replies, was after the office hours and that there is already a finding to the effect that no objectionable or derogatory or defamatory slogans were shouted or that the passage was never blocked by the respondent employee. It was also contended that, it was only a peaceful demonstration. Here, it is to be noted that even according to the first respondent employee, by the time [5.30 p.m.] he had participated in the 'dharna' - the so called peaceful demonstration, all the other employees in the office had left. It was also contended that, it was only a peaceful demonstration. Here, it is to be noted that even according to the first respondent employee, by the time [5.30 p.m.] he had participated in the 'dharna' - the so called peaceful demonstration, all the other employees in the office had left. If all the employees had already left the premises and since this was admittedly within the office premises, before whom the persons concerned including the first respondent were demonstrating the cause, remains to be a matter of mystery. A person can demonstrate anything only before somebody else and no prudent man can visualize a situation where a person is demonstrating something to himself or to the other persons who are equally demonstrating the cause. In so far as it is conceded that the first respondent had also participated in the demonstration within the premises and that the Police had to be summoned to disperse the crowd by 6.15 p.m., in turn admittedly taking the first respondent as well to the police station, the role of the first respondent in the so called peaceful demonstration in the office premises [though after 5.30 p.m.] is established. This was virtually to compel the authority concerned to yield to some demand raised by them in connection with the cause of action mentioned already. The question is whether there is any violation in respect of the relevant rules in this context. 15. Since it has already been held by the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority that there was no violation of Rule 3 (1) (ii) of the Rules, the remaining question is with regard to the violation of Rule 3 (1) (iii) and Rule 7(ii) of the Rules. Rule 3 (1) (iii) reads as follows : “3. General (1) Every Government servant shall at all times - (i) xxxx (ii) xxxx (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant” After going through the materials on record, the activity pursued by the first respondent, who was working elsewhere and who came to the office for participating in the 'dharna', that too, by availing leave sought for and obtained for personal/domestic purpose was quite unbecoming of a Government servant and as such, it cannot be said that the said Rule is not attracted, nor no violation was involved. The finding rendered by the Tribunal to the contrary is not correct and as such, we hold that the finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer and also the Disciplinary/Appellate authority is liable to be sustained. 16. Coming to Rule 7 (ii) of Rules, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that, it will be attracted only if there is a strike or attempt to strike and in the case of first respondent, he had worked on the relevant date throughout the office hours as spoken to by the defence witness as well. The participation in the demonstration after the office hours will not amount to a strike or any attempt to strike and as such, Rule 7(ii) is stated as not attracted. We find it difficult to accept the said proposition. Rule 7 (ii) reads as follows : “7. Demonstration and Strikes : No Government servant shall - (i) xxxxxx (ii) resort to or in any way abet any form of strike or coercion or physical duress in connection with any matter pertaining to his service or the service of any other Government servant” The above Rule not only includes strike or attempt to strike, but also coercion or physical duress. As mentioned already, even according to the first respondent, when the first respondent participated in the demonstration at 5.30 p.m. all other office staff had left. In fact, the purpose of assembling and demonstration made by the participants was never to demonstrate something to themselves, but to somebody else. When no staff was there and since it was not before the general public, but admittedly within the office premises, it was only pointed against the competent authority who was inside the cabin i.e. A & E; virtually to coerce him to yield to their demands in the matter of continued suspension of their colleague by name Santhosh Kumar. This being the position, Rule 7 (ii) is very much attracted and the finding and reasoning given by the Tribunal in Ext. P4 to the contrary is not correct or sustainable. 17. There is another contention for the first respondent, as put forth by the learned counsel for the first respondent, that the demonstration after the office hours will not attract any misconduct. Here again, we find it difficult to accept the said proposition for more than one reason. P4 to the contrary is not correct or sustainable. 17. There is another contention for the first respondent, as put forth by the learned counsel for the first respondent, that the demonstration after the office hours will not attract any misconduct. Here again, we find it difficult to accept the said proposition for more than one reason. It is settled law that, if an act or deed committed by a person even outside the premises of employment will amount to misconduct, if it has tarnished the image of the employer in any manner. The position gathers more momentum, when such an act is pursued within the office premises, though after the office hours. The issue can be approached in a different angle as well. Now-a-days, by virtue of the different work culture involving high quantum of work, with limited hands available to do the work, it may be necessary for the officers/staff to continue in office even much beyond the office hours. There may be clients or prospective customers or those who want to avail the service still remaining in the office to get things done. If it is held that once the office time is over, it will be open for anybody to conduct a demonstration within the office premises [shouting slogans or otherwise], even if it be a peaceful demonstration as put forth by the first respondent, it will spoil the work culture and will cause hindrance to the willing workers/officers in the office. As such, even if it is beyond office hours, we hold that the act/deed committed by the first respondent employee would amount to misconduct and it is definitely to be proceeded against. We find support from the decision rendered by another Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(CAT) No. 381 of 2010 and connected matters on 16.02.2018 [to which one of us - PRRM(J) was a member] whereby it was held that the demonstration within the office premises will amount to misconduct, even if it is beyond the working hours. 18. The remaining question is whether any interference is to be made with regard to the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary authority by way of Annexure A1 and affirmed by the Appellate authority by way of Annexure A2. 18. The remaining question is whether any interference is to be made with regard to the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary authority by way of Annexure A1 and affirmed by the Appellate authority by way of Annexure A2. As mentioned already, initially nine charges were levelled against the employee [12 charges in respect of other case]; out of which 3 charges have already been dropped as per Annexure A2 order passed by the Appellate authority, holding that the subject matter was already dealt with by the competent authority awarding a 'warning' in respect of such incident occurred on 17.04.2007. It is also settled law, that even if some of the charges are not proved, the punishment imposed can be sustained if it is sustainable with reference to the gravity of the proven misconduct involving the remaining charges. In the instant case, it cannot be lost sight of that the demonstration conducted by the persons concerned was in respect of the prolonged suspension of another employee by name Mr. Santhosh Kumar. The demonstration held on different dates led to several disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employees concerned and after the different rounds of litigation at different levels, the matter had come up for consideration before this Court as well. Some of the cases have already been disposed of and some cases still remain. In a batch of cases, such as O.P.(CAT) No.381 of 2010 and connected matters, we sustained the action of the Department in imposing 'minor penalty' upon the persons/officers concerned and the order passed by the Tribunal absolving the delinquent employees has been set aside. The question is whether the first respondent in the instant case requires a harsher treatment than the punishment given to other similarly situated persons and if there is any compelling circumstances, to what extent could it be reckoned ? It has also to be borne in mind that the incident happened more than one decade ago and it is brought to the notice of this Court [across the Bar] that the relationship between the management and the employees as on date is quite cordial and that the workers/staff are doing their job with utmost devotion and sincerity. 19. It has also to be borne in mind that the incident happened more than one decade ago and it is brought to the notice of this Court [across the Bar] that the relationship between the management and the employees as on date is quite cordial and that the workers/staff are doing their job with utmost devotion and sincerity. 19. Considering the necessity to maintain stable industrial relations, employer - employee relationship and transparency in the proceedings; at the same time without compromising on discipline while imposing punishment to an appropriate extent, it always be better, if the Appellate Authority reconsiders the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the first respondent as well, in relation to the same cause action as mentioned above. In the said circumstances, the remand ordered by the Tribunal for causing Annexure A2 order to be reconsidered does not warrant any interference. The Appellate Authority shall consider the feasibility of awarding uniform punishment, with marginal variation in appropriate cases depending upon the circumstances, to promote the industrial peace and cordiality, extracting maximum work output from the employees concerned, more so, when the root cause of action is the same in all cases i.e. against the prolonged suspension of an employee by name Santhoshkumar. With the above observations, these two Original Petitions are disposed of. Proceedings as above shall be finalized at the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petitions stand disposed of.