ORDER : 1. The appellant before us assails judgment and order of the learned First Court by which the punishment of dismissal awarded to a Police Constable has been found to be disproportionate and the matter has been remanded to the police authorities themselves for passing appropriate order on the question of quantum of punishment. The charges against the writ petitioner involve misbehavior with superior authorities in an intoxicated state and also clashing with a Hawaldar using filthy language while on duty. The learned First Court found no flaw in the decision of the disciplinary authority in holding the charges to have been established. It has been held in the judgment under appeal :- “8. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the pleadings, I am of the considered view that there has been no procedural violation in the departmental inquiry. 9. In view of the seriousness of allegations committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied. Moreover, the entire finding given by the three consecutive authorities i.e. disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority based upon the materials on record, cannot be subject to judicial review, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 , specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below: “15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions ………” Therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual as well as the legal dictum, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, so far as any procedural irregularity and violation of principle of natural justice from the inception of proceeding till its culmination is concerned. But, considering the fact that the extreme punishment for dismissal has been passed, the case of the petitioner safely falls within the ambit and scope of doctrine of proportionality. But, considering the fact that the extreme punishment for dismissal has been passed, the case of the petitioner safely falls within the ambit and scope of doctrine of proportionality. Even assuming that the charges are proved in the inquiry proceeding but the punishment inflicted appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges/misconduct, therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect, this Court is inclined to exercise judicial review only to the limited extent on the question of quantum of punishment to be awarded taking into consideration the totality of the charges, its correspondent findings thereto. 10. Viewed thus, the impugned orders of punishment dated 25.04.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority being affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.05.2012 and the revisional authority vide order dated 03.09.2013 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to pass appropriate order only on the question of quantum of punishment within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order, strictly in accordance with law.” 2. The State is aggrieved with that part of the judgment in which the learned First Court has found the order of dismissal to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges of misconduct. It has been argued on behalf of the State that the writ petitioner being a member of a disciplined force, such kind of behavior while on duty merits harshest punishment. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that the learned First Court upon considering the entire materials had come to its finding and such finding ought not to be disturbed by us. 4. We concur with the view of the learned First Court that the allegations against the writ petitioner were serious in nature. But at the same time, we have also taken note of the fact that there was no evidence of any such behavior of the writ petitioner in the past. This appears to be a one off situation. While we accept the submission of the learned counsel for the State that retaining such an incumbent in a disciplined force would have adverse impact on the overall morale of the Force, at the same time, for the reason already indicated, we are of the view that the order of dismissal may be converted into an order of removal from the service. This would eliminate the possibility of retention of the writ petitioner in the force but at the same time would not close all employment avenues for him in future. In effect, we uphold the finding of the learned First Court that the punishment of the writ petitioner was shockingly disproportionate and also accept the State’s stand that retaining the writ petitioner in service might cause adverse impact on the morale of the Force. 5. The direction of the learned First Court remanding the matter to the authority is set aside. The punishment awarded to the writ petitioner is modified to that of removal from service instead of dismissal from service. The appeal stands allowed to the above extent. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed accordingly.