JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, C.J. Heard Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in Original Application No.040/00187/2016, whereby the punishment of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner in a departmental proceeding, has not been interfered with. 3. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the year 2007 on the post of Postal Assistant. While the petitioner was in service, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in the year 2013 with the specific charge of not having deposited Rs.44,060/-, which he had collected from depositors, in the Bank. Such action of the petitioner, therefore, was found to be unbecoming of an Officer of the Post Office as it showed gross lack of integrity and devotion to duty. The act of the petitioner was found to be unbecoming of a Government servant, violating the provisions of Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii) and 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 4. It appears from the records that though the petitioner participated in the enquiry but never produced any evidence in support of his defence nor got himself examined, even though he was made to understand that he could have done so. The petitioner also did not produce any witness in support of his defence. The defence of the petitioner before the Disciplinary Authority was that because of his inexperience, a discrepancy had occurred which was largely because of oversight but no sooner had he come to know about it, he had deposited the amount in question along with additional amount which could have been the interest on such amount which was not deposited in the first instance. 5. It appears that after the petitioner deposited the amount, so stated to have been defalcated by him, he was subjected to a departmental proceeding in which he was subjected to a penalty of removal from service. 6. The appeal and the revision against such orders did not succeed. 7. Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as a vindictive measure, despite the petitioner having deposited the said amount before the departmental proceeding was initiated against him, he was made an accused in a criminal case in which he was put on trial. The appeal and the revision against such orders did not succeed. 7. Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as a vindictive measure, despite the petitioner having deposited the said amount before the departmental proceeding was initiated against him, he was made an accused in a criminal case in which he was put on trial. However, the Trial Court found no incriminating material against the petitioner to charge him with the offence under Section 409 of the IPC. Since the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the petitioner under Section 409 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubts, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the charge against him in the departmental proceeding as also in the criminal case were identical. 8. The law with respect to this aspect of the matter is too trite to be recorded here. 9. A disciplinary proceeding and a criminal case are dealt with differently. In a criminal case, the charges have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas in a departmental proceeding, decision hinges on preponderance of probability. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal Courts are almost identical and similar and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, in certain cases it might acquire a different dimension. Under such circumstances, a Court might be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief if it concludes that the findings in the disciplinary proceedings, if allowed to stand, would be unjust, unfair and oppressive. However, there is a caution in applying this rule that every case will turn on its own facts. [Refer to - G.M. Tank -Vs- State of Gujarat & Ors. :: (2006) 5 SCC 446 ; State Bank of Hyderabad -Vs- P. Kata Rao :: (2008) 15 SCC 657 and Ram Lal -Vs- State of Rajasthan & Ors. :: (2024) 1 SCC 175 ] . 10. The petitioner cannot claim that he was not given a fair deal in the departmental proceedings. In fact the petitioner was made to understand that he can examine himself, produce witnesses or bring any document in his defence but he never chose to do so. 11. :: (2024) 1 SCC 175 ] . 10. The petitioner cannot claim that he was not given a fair deal in the departmental proceedings. In fact the petitioner was made to understand that he can examine himself, produce witnesses or bring any document in his defence but he never chose to do so. 11. However, what has struck us is that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground and that before the departmental proceeding was initiated against him, he had deposited the amount in the Treasury along with interest. That apart, the petitioner had not forgotten to make such entries in the relevant records, which is a substantial proof of fact that he did not want to act surreptitiously in this regard and avoid depositing the amount so collected from the depositors in the Treasury or else he would have avoided to make such entries in the records. 12. These aspects make us feel that the punishment of removal from service, especially when the petitioner is only 39 years of age as of now, is disproportionate and unduly harsh which requires a re-look. 13. We are conscious of the fact that a judicial review of the disciplinary proceeding, generally speaking, is not directed against the decision but against the decision making process. The question of choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the disciplinary authority but after having said that, we do reckon that the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It ought not to be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be disproportionate to the offence so as to shock the conscience and amount to conclusive evidence of bias. Though the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings is of a late origin, but in a case of this kind, we are of the view that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner ought not to remain immune from correction. 14. Though the doctrine of proportionality in disciplinary proceedings is of a late origin, but in a case of this kind, we are of the view that the sentence imposed upon the petitioner ought not to remain immune from correction. 14. Though many years have passed by and the petitioner has remained out of service for about a decade but taking into account that he is still 39 years of age, we deem it appropriate to set aside the sentence imposed upon him, the order passed in appeal, revision and the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for giving a fresh look and take a decision with respect to the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner, keeping in mind his age, his efforts at restituting the money which could not be deposited because of oversight and that the petitioner had made relevant entries in the records leading to the presumption that there could not have been an attempt at swindling the amount for personal use. 15. We order accordingly. 16. The decision by the Disciplinary Authority in that event shall be taken within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. 17. We also, however, clarify that if the disciplinary authority concludes that lesser punishment ought to be awarded to the petitioner, no back-wages shall be granted to the petitioner as he has remained out of service for all these years. 18. With the afore-noted directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.