ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.1701 of 2003 dated 27.10.2006 in modifying the penalty imposed on the respondent. 2. The parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal:- 3. The facts leading to the present Writ Petition is as follows:- The applicant was initially appointed as ED. BPM, Kothakottam B.O attached with Tuni S.O from 09.09.1977 and had rendered 22 years of satisfactory service upto 15.11.1999 i.e. date of removal from service. The applicant was issued a Charge Memorandum on 24.04.1977 under Rule 8 of EDA (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 and enquiry was conducted on the charges framed. In the charge memorandum, three Articles of Charge were framed and they read as under:- “a) Article-I: That the said Shri N.V.V.S. Prasad while functioning as ED BPM, Kotha Kottam BO, a/w Kotananduru SO during the period from 09.09.1996 to 30.09.1996 failed to account for in the BO accounts the amounts of Rs.350/- on 09.09.1996 accepted from Shri M.Satyanarayana, for depositing in the (7) RD accounts 286965, 286821, 286420, 286550, 286428, 286837, 286635 @ Rs.50/- each towards monthly instalments for the month of September 1996 on the dates of acceptance as required in Rule 144 read with Rule 143 (3) and 131 and 174 of Book of BO Rules (VI Edition – 1982) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required in Rule 17 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. b) Article-II: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office the said Shri N.V.V.S. Prasad failed to account for on the same day a depoisit of Rs.1,050/- in SB Account No.1825289 accepted from Shri M.S.N. Rao on 08.06.1996 and Rs.550/- in SB Account No.1826549 from Shri L. Bhadram on 20.06.1996 and thus failed to follow the provisions of Rule 131 and 174 of Book of BO Rules (VI Edition – 1982) and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty as required in Rule 17 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. c) Article-III: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, the said Shri N.V.V.S. Prasad detained 20 unregistered letters without effecting delivery which were received in the BO on 03.09.1996, 04.09.1996, 05.09.1996, 08.09.1996 and 09.09.1996 and thus contravened the provisions Rule 66 of Book of BO Rules (VI Edition – 1982) and thereby failed to maintain devotion to duty as required in Rule 17 of P&T ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.” 4. The Inquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report holding that Charges I & II as proved and Charge III as not proved. Taking into consideration the explanation of the applicant and the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of removal from service on 15.11.1999. The appeal and revision filed thereon were also dismissed vide orders dated 20.02.2001 and 23.10.2002 respectively. Hence, O.A was filed before the Tribunal to set-aside the punishments imposed. 5. The O.A was filed raising elaborate and detailed grounds by the applicant to establish his innocence of the Charge framed against him. The applicant also raised grounds pointing out the errors committed in the impugned proceedings. The respondent/Union of India filed its counter opposing the plea of the applicant by contending that the enquiry and the consequential punishment were perfectly in consonance with the procedure and no error warranting interference was pointed out. All the grounds urged by the applicant and the respondent-Union of India are not referred considering the scope of writ petition, which would be explained in the subsequent paragraphs. 6. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions was of the opinion that the Charge against the applicant was proved, but was of the opinion that the punishment of removal imposed on the applicant is harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of Charges. The O.A was allowed following similar orders passed by the Tribunal and quashed the punishment of removal and directed respondents to reinstate the petitioner without any financial benefit from the date of order of removal from service dated 15.11.1999 till the date of order of the Tribunal. It was however held that the applicant would be entitled for emoluments from the date of order of the Tribunal and the applicant would be entitled for getting other service benefits as permissible under law for the period from 15.11.1999 till the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. It was however held that the applicant would be entitled for emoluments from the date of order of the Tribunal and the applicant would be entitled for getting other service benefits as permissible under law for the period from 15.11.1999 till the order of the Tribunal. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. Heard Sri Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners and no representation is made on behalf of the respondents. 8. The only issue which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in modifying the punishment imposed on the Respondents. 9. The Articles of Charge-I & II pertains to failure to credit an amount of Rs.350/- on 09.09.1996 accepted from one M. Satyanarayana for 7 R.D accounts @ Rs.50/- towards monthly installments. The Article of Charge-II pertains to failure to deposit an amount of Rs.1,050/- on same day in S.B A/c No.1825289 received on 08.06.1996 and Rs.550/- in A/c No. 1826549 received on 20.06.1996. 10. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant had been working in the Department since 1977 till the impugned order of removal dated 15.11.1999. The applicant had worked for over 22 years and the pleadings on behalf of the Department do not reflect any antecedents of similar/allied incidents against the applicant. 11. It is not the case of the department that the applicant was habituated in evading deposit of amounts into the accounts of the customers. A stray incident would require a certain amount of benefit of doubt to the applicant rather than to castigate the character of delinquent/respondent as a person of dubious nature. This is all the more required in a case of this nature where the applicant had rendered blemishless service for over 22 years. The alleged misappropriated amount of Article of Charges I & II is Rs.1,900/- and the said amount is negligible and nothing substantial could be made out with the amount of Rs.1,900/-. 12. Even otherwise, the orders of termination/dismissal and removal from service are considered as capital punishments in Service Law and such extreme punishments cannot be based on an isolated incident. Removal from service is an extreme penalty and before inflicting such a punishment, the Disciplinary Authority is required to examine as to whether any lesser punishment can be inflicted considering the misconduct of an employee. Removal from service is an extreme penalty and before inflicting such a punishment, the Disciplinary Authority is required to examine as to whether any lesser punishment can be inflicted considering the misconduct of an employee. It is to be noted that punishment of removal or dismissal will affect the entire family of the employee as they would be put in ruinous financial condition. 13. Therefore, the penalty imposed on applicants was irrational and perverse. The Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court was entitled to modify the punishment in exercise of the doctrine of proportionality in order to shorten the litigation. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749 at Paragraph 18 held as under:- “18..... The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 15. A similar view was also taken by larger bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Tulsi Ram Patel, 1985 (3) SCC 398 while considering penalty imposed on a government servant under Art.311 of the constitution held at paragraph 127 as under:- “127. ……..Where the court finds that the penalty imposed by the impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of that particular government service the court will also strike down the impugned order. Thus, in Shankar Dass v. Union of India and another, [1985] 2 S.C.C. 358, this Court set aside the impugned order of penalty on the ground that the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant was whimsical and ordered his reinstatement in service with full back wages. It is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 16. It is, however, not necessary that the Court should always order reinstatement. The Court can instead substitute a penalty which in its opinion would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 16. The case law cited by the counsel for the petitioner i.e. Government of T.N and Another vs. A. Rajapandian [ (1995) 1 SCC 216 ] and Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., vs. M.Chandrasekhar Reddy and Others [ (2005) 2 SCC 481 ] are cases where it was held that the Courts do not have power to appreciate evidence in the disciplinary enquiry. This is not a case where there has been a re-appreciation of evidence, but as mentioned in the above cited case law, the interference was only on account of proportionality of punishment on the applicant. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any error committed by the Tribunal warranting interference. 17. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the order of tribunal does not warrant interference as regards modification of punishment. 18. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.