JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) The application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal is not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. The delay is, therefore, condoned. Application is ordered. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1998 of 2014 (S/S) dated 07.05.2018. The respondent-petitioner was engaged, on compassionate grounds, as a Mess Worker on 04.11.2003. She was found carrying 20 kgs. of sugar and 5 kgs. of potatoes to her home for which a show cause notice was issued to her on 10.09.2014. The respondent- writ petitioner filed her reply to the show cause notice but, thereafter, admitted her guilt. Her services were terminated by the Disciplinary Authority on 01.11.2014. 3. Questioning the order of termination, the respondent- writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner belonged to the lower strata of society, and she has admitted her guilt. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the punishment of termination, imposed upon the respondent-writ petitioner, was harsh and excessive; and the punishment imposed must be commensurate with the alleged misconduct. The petition was allowed, the impugned order of termination was quashed, and the Disciplinary Authority was directed to re-consider the punishment within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved thereby the present appeal. 4. We find considerable force in the submission of Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, that, in judicial review proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not undertake the task of examining the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the delinquent, or to substitute the punishment with another, as these are all matters within the exclusive realm of the employer; and the petitioner's admission of having stolen 20 kgs. of sugar and 5 kgs. of potatoes would warrant strict and stringent action being taken, by the official concerned, to ensure that such errant employees are dealt with sternly. We must, however, bear in mind that the jurisdiction exercised by a Division Bench, in an intra-court appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, is extremely limited. Both the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge exercise the very same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We must, however, bear in mind that the jurisdiction exercised by a Division Bench, in an intra-court appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge, is extremely limited. Both the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge exercise the very same jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge is not a Court subordinate. It is only if the Division Bench is satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from a patent error or illegality, would interference be justified for, even if two views are possible and a view, other than the one which found favour with the learned Single Judge, appeals to the Division Bench, the appellate court is nonetheless required to refrain from interference in an intra-court appeal. 5. The learned Single Judge has directed the Disciplinary Authority to re-consider the punishment within a period of ten weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, is justified in his submission that the observations of learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, that the punishment of termination imposed upon the respondent – writ petitioner is harsh and excessive, would tie the hands of the Disciplinary Authority in imposing the appropriate punishment. Suffice it, therefore, to observe that the Disciplinary Authority shall re-consider the punishment, imposed on the respondent – writ petitioner uninfluenced by any observations made either in the order under appeal or the order now passed by us, however bearing in mind that the respondent – writ petitioner was working in a Group ‘D' post, and was appointed to the said post on compassionate grounds. 6. Subject to the modifications, indicated hereinabove, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs.