JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 - The Station Director, Unit-3 & 4 (RR Site), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Rawatbhata and further affirmed vide order dated 13.08.2020 by the appellate authority whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed against the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under:- On 08.06.2017 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with the averment that alongwith his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses for the treatment of his son, he has claimed the amount qua the traveling expenses and for the purpose, has annexed a forged rail ticket. The charge as framed shows that the rail ticket annexed with the claim was a fraudulent one and the ticket did not match with the claim amount as made. A reply to the charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted and vide inquiry report dated 09.03.2018, the petitioner was held to be guilty. Objections to the inquiry report were filed by the petitioner. After considering the said objections, a show-cause notice dated 16.05.2019 was served on him whereby it was stated that the department proposes to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement against him and he may file his reply to the same. After considering the reply as filed by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 11.05.2020 was passed whereby the petitioner was compulsorily retired. Appeal against the same was filed before the competent authority and the same was rejected vide order dated 13.08.2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:- (i) that the show-cause notice qua the alleged incident was served on him after a period of seven months of submission of the claim by him without any reason. (ii) that before any order being passed or the claim being considered by the department, he had specifically rectified his mistake and had written to the department that the said ticket was inadvertently annexed by him and he had no intention to claim more than the amount spent on his traveling. (iii) that the amount as claimed by him was Rs. 2433/- whereas the rail ticket enclosed with the claim was for an amount of Rs. 6435/-. (iii) that the amount as claimed by him was Rs. 2433/- whereas the rail ticket enclosed with the claim was for an amount of Rs. 6435/-. Had the intention of the petitioner been to claim more amount, he would have claimed the amount as shown in the rail ticket and not the actual amount spent by him on his travel. (iv) the claim as raised by him was never reimbursed to him and therefore the department did not suffer any pecuniary loss at any point of time. (v) the petitioner obtained no monetary benefit out of the said claim and therefore, no misconduct in terms of Clauses 17.2, 17.21 & 17.22 of the Standing Orders of the department could be alleged against him. (vi) the inquiry as conducted and the inquiry report as filed were based on the sole fact that the petitioner had admitted his mistake and therefore, was held liable to be punished whereas the said ground should have been considered vice-versa and a lenient approach ought to have been taken against him because of the fact that he admitted his mistake before the reimbursement could be made. (vii) the misconduct as alleged against the petitioner and as found proved against him does not fall within the definition of misconduct as defined in any of the Clauses of the Standing Orders, to be specific, Clauses 17.2, 17.21 & 17.22. (viii) even if it is assumed that the misconduct of the petitioner was proved, the punishment as imposed was highly disproportionate to the act committed. The punishment of compulsory retirement is the most severe and harsh punishment which could not have been imposed for the act as alleged and as alleged to be proved. (ix) the punishment has been imposed keeping in consideration the punishment imposed on him in some earlier departmental proceedings of misconduct. No show-cause notice regarding the earlier punishment being considered for the present proceedings was ever served on him. The charges as framed against him also did not speak of the earlier punishment or the earlier actions of misconduct. Therefore, without any opportunity of hearing being given regarding the earlier punishment being considered for the purposes of the present proceedings, no punishment could have been imposed on him. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the following case laws: 1. Therefore, without any opportunity of hearing being given regarding the earlier punishment being considered for the purposes of the present proceedings, no punishment could have been imposed on him. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the following case laws: 1. (1964) 4 SCR 540 : AIR 1964 SC 506 ; State of Mysore v. L. Manche Gowda 2. (2010) 10 SCC 539 ; Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 3. (2014) 1 RLW 398 (Raj.); Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act Cases), Jodhpur & Ors. v. Anand Swaroop Sharma. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the punishment as imposed is totally in keeping with the provisions of the Standing Orders of the department. He submitted that it was an admitted case of the petitioner himself that he had made the corrections in the rail ticket and had submitted his claim on the basis of the said ticket. Therefore, after the clear admission of the petitioner, the department was very right in punishing him for the said offence. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had earlier been punished with a punishment of deduction of grade and therefore, the present one being the second misconduct on his part, in terms of the Standing Orders of the department, the punishment could not have been lesser than the compulsory retirement. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had already been punished with the major penalty for the earlier misconduct and therefore, as the misconduct was repeated, the department is very well justified in imposing a punishment more severe than the earlier one. In the present case, as the petitioner had already been punished with the grade deduction, the punishment of compulsory retirement for the second offence/misconduct could not have been lesser than that. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the rail ticket, which is the 'bone of contention' in the present matter makes it clear that the same incorporates incorrect entries and it is an admitted case that the same has been made by the petitioner himself. Therefore, so far as the finding regarding the said ticket is concerned, this Court would not go into the question whether the said fault/misconduct was committed by the petitioner or not? Therefore, so far as the finding regarding the said ticket is concerned, this Court would not go into the question whether the said fault/misconduct was committed by the petitioner or not? But the second aspect of the matter is what would be the consequences of such misconduct and whether the said act of the petitioner has led to any financial implication or financial loss to the department. 8. It is clear on record that the petitioner did travel to Mumbai for the treatment of his son and the documents placed on record pertaining to the said date are not disputed. It is clear on record that the son of the petitioner was hospitalized between the period of 16.12.2015 to 19.12.2015 and the claim made by the petitioner qua his travel expenses pertained to that period only. It is also clear that although the rail ticket state the amount to be Rs. 6435/-, the claim raised by the petitioner was for an amount of Rs. 2433/- only. The claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses was submitted by the petitioner after two months of his returning back from Mumbai and soon after that he had admitted his mistake and clarified the same to the concerned authorities. The said clarification was made by him on 30.12.2016 and the charge-sheet was issued to him on 08.06.2017. No reason for such delay has been given by the departmental authorities. Moreover, it is also admitted on record that the claim as raised by the petitioner was never reimbursed and the amount was never paid to him. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that any financial loss was caused to the department by the act of the petitioner. 9. In 2014 (1) RLW 398; (Raj.) Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act Cases), Jodhpur & Ors. v. Anand Swaroop Sharma the Division Bench of this Court held as under: "10. Now switching on to Charge No. 2 & 3, which were found to be proved against the delinquent employee, we are of the view that both the charges are not of grave and serious nature warranting the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 14(v) of the Rules of 1958 on the anvil of Wednesbury's principles of proportionality. The Apex Court, in Bhagat Ram v. Himachal Pradesh & Ors. The Apex Court, in Bhagat Ram v. Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (1983) 2 SCC 442 ), without referring to Wednesbury's principles of proportionality, has examined the proportionality of punishment in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and concluded that dismissal on trivial charge of negligence, which has not resulted in any loss to the Department, cannot be sustained." (emphasis added) 10. The next ground raised by the petitioner is that no show-cause notice was served on him pertaining to the fact that his earlier punishment would also be under consideration in the present inquiry. A perusal of the charge-sheet, the show-cause notice as well as the notice wherein the punishment has been proposed to be imposed against the petitioner does not specify any fact pertaining to his earlier misconduct or the punishment imposed in the earlier proceedings. In (2010) 10 SCC 539 Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "34. The courts below and the statutory authorities failed to appreciate that if the disciplinary authority wants to consider the past conduct of the employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice thereof and generally the charge-sheet should contain such an article or at least he should be informed of the same at the stage of the show-cause notice, before imposing the punishment." 11. A perusal of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court makes it clear that the past conduct of an employee cannot be taken into consideration to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent employee. In Mohd. Yunus Khan's case (supra), the Honble Apex Court while concluding, laid down certain guidelines to be followed which the Hon'ble Apex Court has termed to be inescapable conclusions. The relevant conclusions for the purpose of the present matter are reproduced as under: "X. The Appellate Authority could not consider the past conduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without bringing it to the notice of the appellant. XI. As the punishment order had been passed in violation of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice as well, it is rendered null and void. Thus, it remained inexecutable. XII. XI. As the punishment order had been passed in violation of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice as well, it is rendered null and void. Thus, it remained inexecutable. XII. Past conduct of an employee should not generally be taken into account to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent employee. XIII. The error of violating the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority has been of such a grave nature that under no circumstance can the past conduct of the appellant, even if not satisfactory, be taken into consideration." 12. The ratio as laid down in Mohd Yunus Khan's case (supra), if applied to the present matter, would conclude in favour of the petitioner as it is clear that the charge-sheet and the show-cause notice issued to him pertaining to the present matter does not incorporate any charge pertaining to the earlier misconduct or the earlier punishment imposed on him. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, the misconduct as alleged and found to be proved against the petitioner is not of a nature so grievous or grave that a major punishment of compulsory retirement is to be imposed on him. In the specific opinion of this Court the said punishment is totally disproportionate to the misconduct. It is the settled position of law that the disciplinary authority should also keep in consideration the nature of the offence/misconduct while imposing the penalty or punishment. Just because the petitioner had been punished once with a major penalty the same would not ipso facto conclude that any inquiry conducted in pursuance to a second default/misconduct would always result into a penalty more grave than the earlier one. Neither can such be the intention of the legislature nor can the same be deduced from the Standing Orders of the department itself. The Standing Order No. 21 provides for the procedure to be taken up by the department for conducting of an inquiry and further for imposing of punishment. It does not specifically provide the respective punishment for any specific offence or misconduct. Meaning thereby it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment keeping in consideration the nature of the misconduct. It does not specifically provide the respective punishment for any specific offence or misconduct. Meaning thereby it is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment keeping in consideration the nature of the misconduct. In the present case, the raising of the claim qua a wrong ticket although admittedly fraudulent (where the amount as claimed is less than that printed on the ticket), cannot be concluded to be a misconduct so grave which can result into punishment of compulsory retirement. 13. In view of the above analysis of the precedent law and in view of the observations made above, this Court is of the specific opinion that the punishment as imposed on the petitioner is totally disproportionate and therefore, impugned orders dated 11.05.2020 & 13.08.2020 are hereby quashed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment as awarded to the petitioner is reduced from compulsory retirement to the stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 14. The respondent-department is directed to permit the petitioner to join his services forthwith with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary for the period he remained out of service. 15. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. 16. All pending applications also stand disposed of.