JUDGMENT : P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, J. (Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 31.01.2018 made in W.P. No. 4682 of 2011.) 1. The intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 31.01.2018 in W.P. No. 4682 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judge of this Court. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their description in the Writ Petition for the sake of convenience. 2. The Petitioner, who was working as Grade-I Police Constable, Armed Reserve, Chennai on 08.12.2008 at 23.55 hours informed the duty in-charge Head Constable while he was on guard duty at R.S.S. Office that he is going to see his ailing wife at Armed Reserve Quarters, but he went to Chennai Central Railway Station in an inebriated condition and by mis-informing the duty W.P.C. No. 485, created a hoax as if a bomb had been planted in Coimbatore Express and that all passengers were running out from train, which created a panic situation. He was issued a charge memo on 17.03.2009 for the aforesaid misconduct committed by him and he was suspended from service from the afternoon of 11.12.2008. In the domestic enquiry six witnesses were examined and nine nine documents were marked as exhibits by the prosecution. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the Petitioner had been proved. The Third Respondent as Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and was of the view that the indisciplined behaviour of the Petitioner defamed the image of the Police before the public and awarded him the punishment of removal from service by order P.R. No. 92/2(1)/2009 dated 10.08.2009. The Second Respondent, as Appellate Authority, by order P.R. No. 92/PR.II (1)/2009 dated 12.10.2009 in the appeal preferred by the Petitioner, concurred with the Disciplinary Authority and declined to interfere in the matter. In the Revision Application, the First Respondent as Revisional Authority by proceedings PR. No. 168907/AP.3(3)/2010 dated 06.09.2010 did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority that had been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and accordingly rejected the same. The Petitioner challenged the said decision in W.P. No. 4682 of 2011 before this Court. 3. In the Revision Application, the First Respondent as Revisional Authority by proceedings PR. No. 168907/AP.3(3)/2010 dated 06.09.2010 did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary Authority that had been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and accordingly rejected the same. The Petitioner challenged the said decision in W.P. No. 4682 of 2011 before this Court. 3. The Writ Court, after hearing both sides, in the order dated 31.01.2018 held that though the High Court in exercise of power of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate evidence, there was no proper application of mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, as they have not dealt with the evidence which were recorded in the enquiry proceedings and also the explanation offered by the Petitioner while imposing the penalty and confirming the same. It was held that the punishment of removal from service was excessive and disproportionate to the deviant behaviour of the Petitioner on the date of the incident, which could not be sustained in law. Taking note of the fact that the Petitioner has been placed on suspension as early as 11.12.2008 and he has been removed from service on 07.09.2009 and he has been out of employment for more than eight years then, that itself would have to be considered as sufficient penalty for the charges proved against him. Accordingly, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the Petitioner was set aside with direction to reinstate the Petitioner in service with 50% of the backwages for the period of his non-employment with the intention to adopt a justice oriented approach in dealing with such situations with human perspective. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondents have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents, Mr. M. Sathishkumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondents have preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard Mrs. A. Sri Jayanthi, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents, Mr. M. Sathishkumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 5. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents strenuously urged that when the enquiry had been properly conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice and relevant rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, the Writ Court ought not to have set aside the punishment imposed on the ground that it was not commensurate with the gravity of the proved charges, and has sought the intervention of this Court. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner justified the impugned order with the reasons assigned by the Writ Court. 6. No infirmity could be deciphered either in the conduct of the enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings or in the findings arrived by the Enquiry Officer on the proof of the charges, which have been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority. However, it is evident from the orders passed by the First and Second Respondents in the revision and the appeal filed by the Petitioner that they have not adverted to the question of proportionality of the punishment and we are broadly in agreement with the Writ Court that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the Petitioner was grossly disproportionate to the charges proved against him in the disciplinary proceedings. Ordinarily, in such circumstances, the proper recourse would be to set aside the orders of the Revisional and Appellate Authorities and remit the matter for fresh consideration on the question of proportionality of punishment. Though the Petitioner has been out of employment for more than a decade now, we are of the considered view that when there has been established misdemeanour on the part of the Petitioner, it would not serve the ends of justice by granting any part of the backwages to him during that period and we are unable to subscribe to the relief granted by the Learned Judge awarding 50% of the backwages. In such circumstances, we direct the reinstatement of the Petitioner in service, latest by 01.05.2019 without any backwages and grant liberty to the Second Respondent as Appellate Authority to impose a punishment on the Petitioner prescribed in the Rules commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct committed, other than terminating him from service. We are fortified in this view by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya -vs- Commissioner of Police, Delhi [ (2004) 4 SCC 560 ]. 7. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed in part and the order dated 31.01.2018 passed in W.P. No. 4682 of 2011 is modified on the aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.