ORDER: P.Naveen Rao, J. The parties are referred to as arrayed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. Heard Mr. Siva learned counsel for the applicant and the Mr.P.Bhaskar learned standing counsel for Railways. 3. Applicant joins service as Ticket Collector and earned promotions as Travelling Ticket Examiner, Head Travelling Ticket Examiner (HTTE), and Travelling Ticket Inspector (TTI). The scale of pay of HTTE was Rs.5000-8000/- and scale of pay of Travelling Ticket Examiner was Rs. 5500-9000/-. 4. On the allegation of committing misconduct while working as HTTE, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant. First charge memo was issued on 3/11.03.1988 and on 8/14.09.1988 revised charge memo was issued containing three charges. The substance of the allegation of first charge is, deliberately with an intention to mislead the gullible public, applicant allowed two passengers, by name, V.S.Kulkarni and P.K.Kurlarni in S-4 compartment by collecting an amount of Rs. 50/- from them, not issuing receipts with an intention to appropriate the money for his personal use. The allegation in second charge is, though he produced correctly the private and railway cash in the Vigilance Check at the first instance, he subsequently produced excess and unaccounted amount of Rs. 301/- from his pocket, which included the unauthorized amount of Rs. 50/- from two passengers. The allegation in third charge is, on 19/20.05.1993 he allowed a passenger travelling with ticket bearing No.34013, Ex.UBL-SURM dated 16.05.1993, though the ticket was no longer valid. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held all three charges as proved. 5. Based on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of removal from service. On appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said punishment. In the revision preferred by the applicant, the Revisional Authority modified the punishment to that of reduction to a lower post/grade of HTTE in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- fixing his pay at the minimum of the scale i.e., Rs. 5000/- for a period of five years with recurring effect. 6. Challenging the said order of the Revisional Authority, applicant filed O.A.No.672 of 2002. By order dated 24.06.2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal partly allowed the O.A., setting aside the order of the revisional authority, dated 25.06.2001 and remanded the matter to the Revisional Authority to pass orders strictly in accordance with the Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (Rules, 1968). 7. By order dated 24.06.2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal partly allowed the O.A., setting aside the order of the revisional authority, dated 25.06.2001 and remanded the matter to the Revisional Authority to pass orders strictly in accordance with the Rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 (Rules, 1968). 7. According to the Hon’ble Tribunal, though applicant cannot be exonerated and disciplinary action was validly taken against him, punishment imposed on him by the Revisional Authority was not in accord with the provision contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, 1968. According to the Hon’ble Tribunal, the punishment imposed by the Revisional Authority amounts to double punishment. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Revisional Authority to impose punishment in conformity with Rule 6 of the Rules, 1968. 8. Challenging the decision of the Tribunal, the Railway Administration filed W.P.No.21082 of 2005. It is the case of the Railways that the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. G.Veerasamy, 2002 (5) SLR 595 . Challenging the decision of the Tribunal in upholding the disciplinary action, applicant filed W.P.No.1635 of 2006. 9. According to the learned counsel for applicant, the Revisional Authority held that all the charges levelled against applicant are not proved. On second charge, the Revisional Authority observed that what was alleged against the applicant can at the most amounts to negligence and a procedural lapse. That being so, punishment of reduction to a lower post/grade and fixing the pay at the minimum of lower grade with recurring effect is too harsh and disproportionate to the delinquency alleged and proved and this was not properly appreciated by the Hon’ble Tribunal. In support of his contention, learned counsel has taken through the assessment of evidence and the findings recorded by the Revisional Authority. 10. He further submits that the issue concerns the year 2001. The applicant retired from service long ago and at this stage, even remanding the matter to the Revisional Authority to impose lesser punishment is not just and equitable, and petitioner will accept any other less severe punishment as may be imposed by the Court. In support of this plea, learned counsel relied on B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 11. In support of this plea, learned counsel relied on B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 11. Learned standing counsel Mr P.Bhaskar contends that having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the punishment imposed by the Revisional Authority was valid and, therefore, the Tribunal grossly erred in setting aside the punishment. According to the learned counsel for respondents, once punishment of reduction in rank and/or grade is imposed, it is necessary to mention at what stage of the reduction, the employee would draw the salary and the order of the Revisional Authority is in accord with the Rule. In G.Veerasamy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that specifying the pay to be drawn by an employee in the reduced scale or grade is in accord with the provision contained in Rule 6 of the Rules, 1968. This was not appreciated by the Tribunal. While holding that the applicant was found guilty of the charges levelled against him, the Revisional Authority thought it fit to modify the punishment of removal from service to that of reduction. Once charge is held proved, it is no more permissible for the Court to interfere on the nature of punishment imposed by the employer. The law is well settled on this aspect. He, therefore, submits that in the facts of this case, punishment imposed by the Revisional Authority is just and proportionate and do not warrant interference. 12. We have gone through the record and carefully considered the respective submissions. Having regard to the orders passed by the Revisional Authority, the issue is in very narrow compass. 13. Having regard to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.Veerasamy (supra), we are in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for respondent-Railways on specifying the stage of fixing the pay in the lower scale or grade. The Hon’ble Tribunal erred in holding otherwise. However, the matter does not rest here. 14. Though the Enquiry Officer held all the three charges are proved, as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the Revisional Authority reassessed the evidence brought on record and recorded his findings. On first charge, the Revisional Authority found that of the two passengers, Mr. P.K.Kulkarni though initially stated that he paid Rs. 25/- to applicant, he turned hostile and denied payment of the amount. Further, Mr. On first charge, the Revisional Authority found that of the two passengers, Mr. P.K.Kulkarni though initially stated that he paid Rs. 25/- to applicant, he turned hostile and denied payment of the amount. Further, Mr. V.S. Kurlarni did not attend to the enquiry. The Revisional Authority therefore observed that “as one of the two prosecution witnesses had denied making of payment of Rs. 25/- and other prosecution witness did not attend the inquiry proceedings, the Article-I of the charge looses its ground and evidentiary value”. 15. With reference to the allegation in Article-II, the Revisional Authority accepted the defence of the applicant that at the last minute, his neighbour handed over Rs. 300/- to him to purchase two blankets from Solapur and, therefore, it was not reflected in the declaration given by him before boarding the Train. The Revisional Authority held, “from the foregoing, the undersigned is of the opinion that the plea of the charged employee is acceptable, even though he had remitted the excess amount to the Railways, fearing complications resulting out of Vigilance Check.” He therefore observed that it was at the most amount to an act of negligence in not getting certified the excess amount by a Supervisor at Station or in train, which can be treated as a procedural lapse. The Revisional Authority also negatived the observation of the Enquiry Officer about tutoring the witnesses as it was not substantiated by any evidence, and held “does not stand for reasoning”. 16. With reference to the Article-III, the explanation offered by the applicant why he could not check the ticket held by the passenger, was accepted. The Revisional Authority further observed that though officers forming part of Vigilance Team were required to collect penal charges from the passenger for travelling on a lapsed ticket, they did not penalize him. Thus, they are equally responsible, whereas only against applicant action was initiated. He has noted that no explanation was offered by the prosecution on this selective action. He observes that both have to be made responsible and sustained the third charge partially. 17. In view of these findings of the Revisional Authority, though charges as alleged were very grave, they stood diluted. Further, on charge-III, the officers forming part of the Vigilance Team were also responsible, for reasons best known, no action was taken against the Vigilance Team. Only applicant was singled out. 17. In view of these findings of the Revisional Authority, though charges as alleged were very grave, they stood diluted. Further, on charge-III, the officers forming part of the Vigilance Team were also responsible, for reasons best known, no action was taken against the Vigilance Team. Only applicant was singled out. The Court cannot countenance the arbitrary exercise of power and action by the Disciplinary Authority treating the two employees similarly situated differently, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.Sukhendar Reddy Vs State of A.P., and another, 1999 (6) SCC 257 . 18. While holding that the charges are not proved fully and holding that the punishment of removal from service is excessive and disproportionate, the Revisional Authority resorted to impose punishment of reduction to a lower post/grade, fixing the pay at the minimum of the time scale of lower post. This has two fold effect on the applicant. First, he was reverted from higher post to lower post; and second, in view of fixing his pay in the lower grade at Rs. 5000/-, on restoration after five years also his pay would be fixed at Rs. 5000/- and would progress upwards from that stage for remainder of his service. Therefore, punishment imposed is too harsh when compared to finding recorded by the Revisional Authority. Thus, on this ground punishment is not sustainable. In addition, in our opinion, proceeding against the applicant alone on the delinquency forming part of Article-III, while letting off the officers forming part of the Vigilance Team is arbitrary and discriminatory. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the punishment imposed against the applicant is not sustainable. 19. Having held so, what is the course to be adopted by the Court, is the next aspect requiring consideration. Ordinarily, whenever the Court opines that the punishment imposed is harsh and disproportionate, the Court should remit it to the competent authority to impose appropriate punishment. However, there are exceptions carved out to this course. 20. In B.C.Chaturvedi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while cautioning the High Courts against substituting the punishment and holding that it should be left to the discretion of the competent authority to impose appropriate punishment, also held that in the given circumstances of a case and to put quietus to the litigation, the writ Court may exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and prescribe appropriate punishment commensurate with the delinquency alleged and proved. This principle is consistently followed in all subsequent decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. In Union of India and others vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan, 2021 SCC Online SC 1041, the Hon’ble Supreme Court extracted the principles summarized in the decision in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 . Paragraph-25 reads as under: “25. It has been further examined by this Court in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v. Rajendra Singh : (2013) 12 SCC 372 , as under:— “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 22. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 22. After taking due note of the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court further held: “22. The well ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the Courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. 23. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the Courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the Court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons.” (emphasis supplied) 23. From the precedent decisions, two principles can be culled out. Firstly, in the ordinary circumstances whenever the Court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings is disproportionate to the delinquency alleged and proved, the Court should ordinarily remit the matter for imposing appropriate punishment and the Court should not take on itself the task of prescribing any particular punishment. Firstly, in the ordinary circumstances whenever the Court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings is disproportionate to the delinquency alleged and proved, the Court should ordinarily remit the matter for imposing appropriate punishment and the Court should not take on itself the task of prescribing any particular punishment. This is in recognition of well settled principle that it is the prerogative of the employer to take disciplinary action against his employee and to impose appropriate punishment as deemed fit by the employer, having regard to the delinquency alleged against his employee. Secondly, the Constitutional Courts have carved out an exception to this solitary principle. In given facts of a case, and to shorten the litigation, this Court can take up the task of prescribing appropriate punishment. 24. Coming back to the facts of this case, as noted above, the disciplinary proceedings date back to 1998, that resulted in imposing punishment of removal initially, modified to that of reduction in grade, by the order of the Revisional Authority dated 11.06.2001. On a challenge, the Tribunal partly allowed the O.A.No.672 of 2002 holding that punishment imposed against the applicant amounts to double punishment and not prescribed in Rule 6 of Rules, 1968. The Tribunal has not appreciated the contentions urged by the applicant on the finding recorded by the Revisional Authority. In writ petition No.21082 of 2005 filed by the Railways, this Court stayed the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, the issue stands as at the stage of order of the Revisional Authority, dated 11.06.2001. In the meantime, applicant retired from service. Taking due regard to the chronology of events, at this stage remanding the matter to the Revisional Authority to review the punishment imposed by him and to impose lesser punishment is not just and equitable. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of these cases, we are inclined to adopt the middle course as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi (supra). 25. If two employees are alleged to have committed delinquency forming part of Article-III, but only one employee is proceeded and visited with a grave punishment, whereas another employee is let off, the Court can hold such action as amounting to arbitrary exercise of power and authority. 25. If two employees are alleged to have committed delinquency forming part of Article-III, but only one employee is proceeded and visited with a grave punishment, whereas another employee is let off, the Court can hold such action as amounting to arbitrary exercise of power and authority. Taking due note of this aspect also and having regard to the conclusion recorded by the Revisional Authority in his order dated 11.06.2001 and in the peculiar facts of these cases, in our considered opinion, the Court should prescribe appropriate punishment commensurate to the delinquency alleged and proved. 26. In the facts of these cases, the punishment of reduction to lower post/grade of HTTE in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- fixing his pay at the minimum of the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- is modified to that of reduction to the stage of Rs. 5500/- in the scale of Rs. 55009000/- in the post of Travelling Ticket Inspector for a period of two years with recurring effect. 27. The Writ Petition No.21082 of 2005 and W.P.No.1635 of 2006 are disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.