JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 9092 of 2019 1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 192 days in filing L.P.A. No. 378 of 2019. 2. In view of the statements made in the interlocutory application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The said interlocutory application is allowed. L.P.A. No. 378 of 2019 and L.P.A. No. 646 of 2019 1. As both these appeals are interconnected in some manner with each other, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for the Union of India in both the appeals. 3. L.P.A. No. 646 of 2019, arises out of the Judgment dated 19th August, 2019, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 4252 of 2013, dismissing the writ application, wherein, the appellant, who was working as A.S.I. in Central Industrial Security Force, had challenged the orders dated 20.8.2012, 29.9.2012, 29.11.2012 and 28.2.2013. 4. By order dated 20.8.2012, the appellant was served with a memo of charge, by order dated 29.9.2012, the punishment of censure was imposed upon the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 29.11.2012, the appeal filed against the punishment of censure was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and by the subsequent order dated 28.2.2013, the revision filed against the same, was dismissed by the Revisional Authority. 5. So far as the misconduct is concerned, there was allegation against the appellant that he had made interpolation in the name of one of the constables in an inter-coy posting order, and the impugned Judgment shows that even during hearing in the writ application, this interpolation was admitted by the writ petitioner, who was arguing his case in person. The Writ Court has also taken into consideration the fact that in the meantime, the appellant had been compulsorily retired from service with effect from 10.4.2016. Taking into consideration these facts, the Writ Court found that nothing remained to be decided in the writ application and the writ application was dismissed. 6. In L.P.A. No. 378 of 20190, the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 3rd January, 2019, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 15 of 2015, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant writ petitioner, claiming promotion to the post of Inspector, was dismissed by the Writ Court. 7. 6. In L.P.A. No. 378 of 20190, the appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 3rd January, 2019, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 15 of 2015, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant writ petitioner, claiming promotion to the post of Inspector, was dismissed by the Writ Court. 7. In the said writ application, the appellant's case was that, pursuant to a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 25.01.2012, the order of promotion, promoting the appellant to the rank of Inspector, was issued on 28.12.2012, with the following stipulations:- “Before promoting them, it should be ensured that they fulfill the following conditions:- (a) They are confirmed in the entry grade pay or in the present rank. (b) They have successfully completed the promotion cadre course of SI/Min. (c) They have been declared in the medical category SHAPE-I before being declared fit for promotion by the DPC. If there is any deterioration in the medical categorization of the above empanelled SI/Min after DPC and before actual promotion, the promotion will be withheld. (d) No disciplinary/legal proceedings are contemplated/pending against them. (e) Promotion should not be given during the currency of punishment, if any. (f) In case of SC/ST candidate, a certificate to this effect from the competent authority is available in their service documents.” 8. Subsequently the promotion of the appellant was withheld and the appellant has brought on record the communication dated 11.4.2013, as contained in Annexure-1 to the memo of appeal, whereby his promotion was cancelled. As to the reason for cancellation of the promotion, it was informed that the promotion was cancelled due to the fact that the appellant was awarded punishment of censure by order dated 29.9.2012. 9. Though from the impugned Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, it appears that during the hearing of the writ application, the department gave up the point of cancellation of promotion on the ground of punishment imposed upon the appellant, and further point was taken that prior to giving effect to the promotion order, the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and he was not found medically fit and his medical category from SHAPE-I was found to be de-categorized down to SHAPE-II, which disentitled him to the promotion. It also appears from the impugned Judgment that even thereafter, twice the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and he was found in Shape-II category. It also appears from the impugned Judgment that even thereafter, twice the petitioner was subjected to medical examination and he was found in Shape-II category. It is on the ground of medical de-categorization, that the promotion of the appellant was denied. The impugned Judgment shows that admittedly, the appellant had not questioned his de-categorization to SHAPE-II. 10. From a plain reading of the promotion order dated 28.12.2012, it would be apparent that before giving the promotion, it had to be ensured whether the candidate was medically fit in SHAPE-I and in case of any deterioration in the medical categorization before actual promotion, the promotion was to be withheld. Furthermore, the promotion could not have been given during the currency of punishment, if any. We find that at the time of issuing the promotion order, i.e. 28.12.2012, the appellant was already subjected to the penalty of censure on 29.9.2012. As such, on both the counts, the promotion could not have been given to the appellant. 11. The appellant in person has challenged both the aforesaid Judgments before us, submitting that the impugned Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As regards the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 15 of 2015, relating to the promotion order, it is submitted by the appellant, that he was found fit for promotion in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 25.1.2012 and once he was found fit for promotion in the DPC, the promotion could not be withheld due to subsequent punishment order. As regards the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 4252 of 2013, it is submitted by the appellant that the said order also could not be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the mistake committed by the appellant was not such, so as to invite the punishment of censure against him. The appellant in person, accordingly, submitted that both the Judgments, passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in both of the Judgments passed by the Writ Court. 13. The appellant in person, accordingly, submitted that both the Judgments, passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that there is no illegality in both of the Judgments passed by the Writ Court. 13. Having heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for the Union of India, we find that so far as the punishment order is concerned, it is stated in the impugned Judgment itself that even during the hearing before the Writ Court, the appellant had admitted the interpolation made by him in the inter-coy posting. Thus, the misconduct is an admitted fact in this case. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the punishment of censure upon the appellant cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct, as this is the minimum punishment, which could be awarded to the appellant for the admitted misconduct. The law is well settled that once the person in the disciplined force is found to be guilty of misconduct, the Courts have very limited role in interfering with either the finding of the guilt, or with the punishment awarded, subject to the conditions that the principles of natural justice have been followed, and that the punishment imposed upon the delinquent is either not warranted in the eyes of law or is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the delinquent. 14. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 19.8.2019, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 4252 of 2013, dismissing the writ application, also taking into consideration that in the meantime, the appellant had been compulsorily retired with effect from 10.4.2016. 15. As regards the impugned Judgment dated 03.01.2019, passed in W.P. (S) No. 15 of 2015, we find that the order of promotion dated 28.12.2012 specifically stipulated the condition that the appellant must be declared in the medical category SHAPE-I before assuming the charge on promotional post. Admittedly, the appellant was not found medically fit and was de-categorized to SHAPE-II, which de-categorization was never challenged by the appellant. Consequently, he was not entitled to get promotion on this count. The other condition was that the promotion should not be given during the currency of the punishment, if any. Admittedly, the appellant was not found medically fit and was de-categorized to SHAPE-II, which de-categorization was never challenged by the appellant. Consequently, he was not entitled to get promotion on this count. The other condition was that the promotion should not be given during the currency of the punishment, if any. Admittedly the promotional order had been passed on 28.12.2012, and the punishment of censure was imposed on the appellant on 29.9.2012. Thus, the promotion order was passed overlooking the punishment imposed upon the appellant. On this count also, the promotion order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 16. Consequently, we do not find any illegality even in the impugned Judgment dated 03.01.2019, passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 15 of 2015. 17. There is no merit in both these Letters Patent Appeals and the same are accordingly, dismissed.