ORDER : 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: "(i) To quash the order dated 04.09.2023 at Annexure "P" passed by respondent No.1 vide order No.KaViPraNiNi/B52/22829/2021-22 in the interest of justice and equity. (ii) To quash the order dated 12.01.2024 at Annexure "Q" passed by respondent No.2 confirming the order No.KaViPraNiNi/B52/22829/2021-22 in the interest of justice and equity. (iii) To direct the respondents to accord consequential benefits being accrued to the petitioner of his service on the quashing of the impugned orders dated 04.09.2023 vide order No.KaViPraNiNi/B52/22829/2021- 22 at Annexure "P" and order dated 12.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure "Q" in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The petitioner was an in-charge Assistant Accounts Officer at Davanagere District from 05.02.2011 to 13.10.2014. He was working at Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (" BESCOM ") Division Office, Davanagere. The Davanagare Municipality had paid a sum of Rs. 6,08,33,354/- towards the consumption of electricity towards the street lights and water consumption, etc., from 27.05.2013 to 07.06.2015. The cashier by Name K.G.Upadhyaya, working at BESCOM, Davanagere had adjusted the said amount towards different RR numbers belonging to the Davanagere Municipality. However, it was alleged that from out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 5,61,83,839/- was adjusted correctly and an amount of Rs. 46,73,018/- was adjusted to the long disconnected R.R. numbers, and accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner. 3. The Department issued an article of charges dated 21.05.2018 to the petitioner and one K.G.Upadhyaya. The inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted a report dated 30.05.2020 stating, the charges levelled against the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya were proved. After receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 09.06.2020 enclosing the enquiry report, calling for an objection from the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 24.06.2020 to the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority, being dissatisfied with the reply, proceeded to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and also recovery of an amount of Rs. 23,36,509/-. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement and recovery of amount of Rs. 23,36,509/-, filed this writ petition. 5. The respondents filed a statement of objections, contending that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya in discharging their duties. 23,36,509/-. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement and recovery of amount of Rs. 23,36,509/-, filed this writ petition. 5. The respondents filed a statement of objections, contending that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya in discharging their duties. Because of the negligence on the part of the employees, the respondent initiated a disciplinary enquiry and Articles of Charges were issued. The disciplinary enquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner and K.G.Upadhayaya are proved. 6. Based on the enquiry report, the respondents have passed the impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by the respondents are in accordance with the rules and regulations. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an irregularity on the part of the petitioner however, there is no financial loss caused to the respondents. The respondents could have taken a lenient view, instead of passing an order of compulsory retirement. 9. He submits that there is no misappropriation by the petitioner. The respondents committed an error in passing the impugned order to recover the amount of Rs. 23,36,509/-. He submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner by the respondents is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is a negligence on the part of the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya in discharging their duties. The article of charges were issued to the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyayaa and an enquiry was conducted, and the enquiry officer has submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya are proved. The disciplinary authority taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner has rightly passed the impugned order of compulsory retirement, and for recovery of amount. The action of the respondents in passing the impugned order of punishment, and recovery of amount is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The action of the respondents in passing the impugned order of punishment, and recovery of amount is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as an in-charge Assistant Accounts Officer at Davanagere District between 05.02.2011 and 13.10.2014. The Davanagere Municipality had paid Rs. 6,08,33,354/- towards the consumption of electricity towards the street lights and water consumption etc., from 27.05.2013 to 07.06.2015. The cashier by name K.G.Upadhyaya, adjusted the said amount towards different RR numbers belonging to the Davanagere Municipality. Out of the said amount of Rs. 6,08,033,354/-, an amount of Rs. 5,61,83,839/-, was adjusted correctly and an amount of Rs. 46,73,018/- was adjusted towards the long disconnected RR numbers. 13. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya, and thereafter, an article of charges were issued to the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya. The respondents appointed an enquiry officer and the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya participated in the enquiry proceedings, and led the evidence. The enquiry officer, based on the evidence placed on record, has opined that the charges levelled against the petitioner and K.G.Upadhyaya were proved. The respondents issued a show-cause notice along with the enquiry report to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the enquiry report. 14. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice stating that there is no financial loss caused to the respondents. The respondents proceeded to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement and recovery of amount on the petitioner. It is contended that there is only irregularity and not illegality. The order of punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. 15. Admittedly, there is no financial loss caused to the respondents. Therefore, the respondents could have taken a lenient view, and could have imposed other major penalties. 16. As observed above, admittedly, there is no financial loss caused to the respondents. The respondents could not have passed the impugned order for recovery of amount of Rs. 23,36,509/- and compulsory retirement from service. 17. Therefore, the respondents could have taken a lenient view, and could have imposed other major penalties. 16. As observed above, admittedly, there is no financial loss caused to the respondents. The respondents could not have passed the impugned order for recovery of amount of Rs. 23,36,509/- and compulsory retirement from service. 17. Regulation No.10 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulation 1987 (for short, 'the 1987 Regulations' ), reads as follows: "(10) Disciplinary Authorities.- The Board may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation-9 on any Board employee. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-Regulation: (1), but subject to provisions of Regulation (3): (a) any of the penalties specified in Regulation-9 may Be imposed on the Board employees by the appointing authority or the authorities specified in the schedules in this behalf, to the extent indicated thereof. (b) xxx 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Regulation, no penalty specified in Clauses (v) to (viii) of Regulation-9 shall be imposed by any authority lower than the appointing authority." 18. From the perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner, though it is clear that there is a negligence on the part of the petitioner in crediting the amount of Rs. 6,08,033,354/- of Davanagere Municipality into the account, however, it is pertinent to note that they have adjusted correctly an amount of Rs. 5,61,83,839/-, but the remaining amount of Rs. 46,73,018/- was adjusted towards the long disconnected RR numbers. 19. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no misappropriation of amount on the part of the petitioner, the Appointing/Disciplinary Authority could have imposed a punishment other than the major penalties as per Regulation 10 of the 1987 Regulations, except the compulsory retirement. 20. The Appointing/Disciplinary Authority could have taken a lenient view, on the contrary, it has imposed a harsh punishment of compulsory retirement and recovery of amount against the petitioner, which is found to be strikingly disproportionate and shocking to the conscience of the Court. The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the nature and magnitude of the offence. 21. In the instant case, the absence of personal financial misappropriation is a significant factor that the Disciplinary Authority must consider when the determining a lenient punishment. 22. Hence, I am of the considered view that the punishment imposed by the appointing authority needs to be reconsidered. 23. 21. In the instant case, the absence of personal financial misappropriation is a significant factor that the Disciplinary Authority must consider when the determining a lenient punishment. 22. Hence, I am of the considered view that the punishment imposed by the appointing authority needs to be reconsidered. 23. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order of punishments of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner vide Annexure 'P' and the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of punishments vide Annexure 'Q' are set aside. (iii) The respondents are directed to impose appropriate punishment as per Clause (i) to (iv-a) of Regulation-9 of the Regulations, within a period of eight weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service. (v) The consequential benefits are concerned shall be subject to the outcome of the order to be passed by the Appointing Authority. (vi) The said exercise shall be undertaken and completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.