JUDGMENT : SYAM KUMAR V.M., J. 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 09.12.2022 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17386 of 2017. Appellants were respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the W.P.(C). Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the petitioner and respondent No. 5, respectively in the W.P.(C). 2. The W.P.(C) was filed by respondent No.1, who was employed as Assistant Manager in the 1 st appellant Bank, challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, which had led to the imposition of a penalty of dismissal from service. The allegation against the 1 st respondent, in brief, was that while working in Guruvayoor Branch of the Bank, a shortage of Rs.11,000/- was noted while counting the cash brought from the Bhandaram (hundi) of the temple, and in a physical check that followed, the said missing currency were discovered from the 1 st respondent. Suspension and inquiry followed, which finally led to a penalty of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by him was of no avail. Thus, the W.P. (C) was filed seeking the following reliefs: “1. Call for the records leading Exhibit P4, Exhibit P9, Exhibit P11 and Exhibit P13 and quash the same by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari ; 2. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding third respondent to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and treat the entire period of absence as duty for all purposes and grant all consequential benefits including back wages, due promotions, seniority etc. treating the petitioner to have continued in service uninterruptedly untrammelled by the orders of suspension and dismissal thereafter. 3. Declare that petitioner is not liable to suspended and thereafter dismissed from service and he is to be treated to have continued in service uninterruptedly and further he is eligible to all service benefits as he has continued in service untrammelled by the dismissal ; 4. Such other reliefs that the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to consider the grant of a lesser punishment. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Bank has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.U.Balagangadharan, Advocate for the 1 st respondent and Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Standing Counsel for R2. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Bank has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.U.Balagangadharan, Advocate for the 1 st respondent and Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Standing Counsel for R2. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in allowing the petition on the ground that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against respondent No.1. The said finding had been arrived at by the learned Single Judge, overlooking the settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction in matters of disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that the misconduct had been proved beyond doubt against the 1 st respondent and he had admitted the guilt in Ext.P5 letter. The contention later taken up by him that the said letter was executed by him under duress or coercion had not been raised by him hereto before. The learned Single Judge erred in brushing aside the said letter, which had pivotal importance when it came to the culpability of the 1 st respondent, as revealed in the disciplinary proceedings. The finding of the learned Single Judge that CCTV footage was not produced as requested by the 1 st respondent does not hold ground insofar as the said contention of the 1 st respondent had been duly considered by the enquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority, and it had been found that the CCTV footage had been irrecoverably lost. The learned Single Judge could not have concluded so, had a proper appreciation of the preliminary investigation report dated 11.11.2014, signed by the 1 st respondent, been carried out. The learned Single Judge ought to have noted that the non-production of challans containing the denomination of notes was not fatal to the proceedings. In light of the unimpeachable evidence to disprove Exhibit P5 letter and MEX 6 investigation report, signed by the 1 st respondent, the learned Single Judge ought not to have found that the disciplinary proceedings are unsustainable. The finding of the learned Single Judge that no loss has been caused to the appellant Bank was immaterial in the context of the laws governing disciplinary proceedings. It ought to have been noted that respondent No.1 was occupying a position of trust in the appellant Bank and had, by his misconduct, caused a loss of trust. The finding of the learned Single Judge that no loss has been caused to the appellant Bank was immaterial in the context of the laws governing disciplinary proceedings. It ought to have been noted that respondent No.1 was occupying a position of trust in the appellant Bank and had, by his misconduct, caused a loss of trust. It is trite that imposition of a penalty is the discretion of the employer, and unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged, the courts ought not to interfere with the same. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that misappropriation of customers' money surely amounted to misconduct, and the factum as to whether the loss was caused or not was not at all a mitigating factor in deciding the quantum of punishment. The learned counsel placed reliance on the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others v. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another, (1994) 2 SCC 537 , wherein it had been held that on the question of punishment, whether the punishment awarded is excessive and that a lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice is not a question that could be looked into by the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is one of judicial review, and it is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. Reliance is based on the dictum laid down in Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and another v. M. Adinarayana, (2004) 12 SCC 579 and it is contended that the truth or otherwise of the charge is a manner for the disciplinary authority to go into and judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness of the charges and it is not an appeal, but only a review of the manner under which the decision was made. Based on the dictum laid out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charanjit Lamba v. Commanding Officer, Army Southern Command and others, (2010) 11 SCC 314 , it is contended that courts can interfere only when the punishment is outrageously disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith, and courts would not interfere merely because some lesser punishment would have been more appropriate in the court's view. The learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that the Writ Appeal may be allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside. 6. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and the same has been validly rendered in accordance with law. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge had correctly taken note of the shockingly disproportionate penalty that has been imposed on the 1 st respondent, which is not commensurate with the alleged offence. It further contended that the case of the 1 st respondent is a no- evidence case and falls within the ambit of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 484 . It is trite and settled that the power of the court to interfere in the disciplinary matters can be validly exercised, where there is no evidence, where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate, where the procedures are not followed and where the charge does not constitute or come within the meaning of misconduct. More than one of the said requirements is met in the case at hand. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that, during the course of the enquiry, no evidence was adduced to prove the charge that the 1 st respondent had stolen 11 notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination. It had not been proved that the 1 st respondent was part of the counting team either in the temple or while shifting the cash from the temple to the Bank. It is also contended that the allegation of loss or misappropriation of money, though, may attract a penal offence; the authorities had not ventured to file any complaint, and no First Information Report had been registered in the said regard. It is further contended that, after serving a copy of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority went on to impose a penalty of dismissal without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on the quantum of penalty that has to be imposed. The learned counsel submitted that the enquiry report is perverse in nature, insofar as the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Authority are not based on any cogent materials having nexus with the alleged charges. The learned counsel submitted that the enquiry report is perverse in nature, insofar as the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Authority are not based on any cogent materials having nexus with the alleged charges. As has been rightly concluded by the learned Single Judge, there has been total non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, and they had mechanically exercised their powers blindly accepting the enquiry reports. The learned counsel thus submits that the Writ Appeal is not maintainable and the same is only to be dismissed. 7. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth. The precedents relied on in the matter have also been studied. The norms to be followed while applying the principle of proportionality are no longer re integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 (3) KLT SN 38 (C. No. 32) (SC) has held that the principle of proportionality is inherently embedded in Indian Constitution under the realm of reasonable restrictions and that the same can be traced to Article 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Heem Singh, AIR OnLine 2020 SC 795 observed that service jurisprudence recognises proportionality as a legal principle in allowing the authority of the court to interfere when the finding or the penalty are disproportionate to the weight of evidence or misconduct. It is noted that the learned Single Judge had, after an elaborate consideration of the arguments put forth, concluded that the penalty imposed is grossly excessive and out of proportion to the offence alleged and the same is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It had also been unequivocally found that the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . We concur with the said findings of the learned Single Judge on proportionality. It had also been unequivocally found that the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . We concur with the said findings of the learned Single Judge on proportionality. Noting that setting aside the orders and directing a fresh enquiry would not be fair or practical in view of the time that has elapsed, the learned Judge deemed it fit and proper that justice and fair play demanded that a punishment lesser than the one granted and which would not have the effect of forfeiting all his past services, would suit the matter. It is based on the said conclusion that the learned Single Judge had quashed the impugned orders and had remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to consider the grant of lesser punishment as directed by the court. We find that the said reasoning arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be termed as incorrect or erroneous. The same had been validly and properly arrived at based on reliable materials In the facts and circumstances of the case, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Charanjit Lamba (supra) and Adinarayana (supra), does not further the contentions put forth by the appellants. We affirm the findings of the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.