ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel/senior counsel for the appellant and the respondents who appears on caveat. 3. The appellant is a lower primary school assistant in a grant-in-aid school against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the management of the School. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the following charges: "1. Threatened the Manager and his wife at their residence. 2. Was found smoking in the school premises and toilet. 3. Physically assaulted students by giving them corporeal punishment. 4. Misbehaved with colleagues, with the intention of causing them mental torture. 5. Parked motor cycle in a class room while the school was in session." 4. Although the first charge i.e., threatening the Manager and his wife at their residence and the fourth charge i.e., misbehaving with colleagues, with the intention of causing them mental torture, were not proved, but the rest were proved and he was removed from service. This removal was challenged by the appellant by means of writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed his writ petition in part. The findings as to the charges against the appellant were upheld but the learned Single judge was of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the appellant is not proportionate to the charges and therefore, the learned Single judge directed that the Government should reconsider the punishment. This is the order which was challenged by both the appellant and the manager before the Division Bench of the High Court in writ appeal(s) where the writ appeal of the manager was allowed and the writ appeal of the appellant was dismissed. The case of the appellant before the Court(s) as well as before us is that while imposing charges against the appellant and initiating departmental proceedings, the management and the school authority were biased against the appellant. There is an FIR filed by the manager against the appellant that he has entered the house and beaten up the manager and his wife. Against this, there was a cross FIR filed by the appellant as well. Moreover, the inquiry officer did not go into charges one and four referred to above and presently the police is investigating the matter. But rest of the charges, they were proved against the appellant. 5. Against this, there was a cross FIR filed by the appellant as well. Moreover, the inquiry officer did not go into charges one and four referred to above and presently the police is investigating the matter. But rest of the charges, they were proved against the appellant. 5. After hearing both the sides at length, we find that although no scope of interference is required as to the findings of the disciplinary proceedings as well as the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court but considering the nature of the charges, we are of the opinion that the punishment of removal/dismissal from service can be changed into one of compulsory retirement which is indeed one of the punishment under the Rules. 6. Accordingly, we partly allow these appeals and modify the order(s) of the High Court to that extent and change the punishment from 'removal/dismissal from service' into the 'compulsory retirement' which is imposed on the appellant. 7. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.