WA 478/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D. BISWAS, CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.03 pas sed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.' No. 2492/99 dismissing the writ petitio n filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 26.12.98 passed by the appe llate authority imposing the penalty of reduction of 5 stages in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect by modifying the order of penalty imposed by the d isciplinary authority on 22.6.98 whereby and whereunder the disciplinary authori ty has imposed the penalty of reduction to Ist stage of time scale of Junior Man agement Grade Scale-I. We have heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. Chaliha, learned senior counsel for the appellant referring to the f inding recorded by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 22.6.98 as well a s passed by the appellate authority in the order dated 26.12.98 has submitted th at both the authorities having found that there was no financial loss to the Ban k because of the lapses on the part of the appellant, the penalty imposed by the authority i.e. reduction of pay by 5 stages in the time scale of pay with cumul ative effect, is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct proved against the appellant and therefore, the authority may be directed to impose t he penalty commensurate to the mis-conduct committed by the appellant. It appears from the charges levelled against the appellant vide Memorand um dated 22.7.95 that the same are grave in nature. Three charges were framed a gainst the appellant which are quoted below: Charge No.1: Sri B.N. Deka, the then Officer-in-charge of CMD Department had collected unauth orisedly money under the CMDS scheme from customers for which he had also issued receipts unauthorisedly. Charge No.2: Sri B.N. Deka fraudulently used the Central Mini Deposit Pass Book for collectin g money under the above scheme for running a parallel Mini Deposit Scheme unauth orisedly. Charge No.3: Sri B.N. Deka has created a bogus CMDS a/c No. 1998 in the name of Shyam Sherco and unauthorisedly transferred the collected amount to HSS a/c of the CMD Collec tor Mrs. D. Talukdar and fraudulently withdrawn the money using an withdrawal si gned by Mrs. Talukdar. Sri B.N. Deka has thus engaged in fraudulent activities for his own pecuniary benefit which has jeopardized the interest of the Bank. The enquiring authority though initially in his report dated 24.9.96 rec orded the finding that the charges levelled against the appellant have not been proved, the disciplinary authority having not agreed with the findings of the In quiry officer issued notice dated 13.1.97 asking the appellant to show cause as to why the disciplinary authority should be disagree with the finding recorded b y the enquiry officer and also as to why it should not be held that the charges have been proved. The appellant on receipt of the said notice submitted his rep ly on 31.1.97 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority after elaborate discuss ion of evidences on record, disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry o fficer by holding that the charges leveled against the appellant have been prove d and accordingly imposed a penalty of reduction to the Ist stage in the time sc ale of pay of Junior Management Grade Scale-I vide order dated 22.6.98, which ho wever, was reduced by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 26.12. 98, which is impugned in the writ petition by the appellant. The only ground which has been urged in appeal is the disproportionality of the penalty imposed by the authority. From the nature of charges as quoted above which found to be have been p roved against the appellant, it appears that the charges are grave in nature. T he appellate authority, in fact by the order dated 26.12.98 has dealt with the a ppellant very leniently and reduced the penalty imposed by the disciplinary auth ority. The scope of judicial review of penalty imposed by an authority in a dis ciplinary proceeding is very limited. High Court, no doubt has the power to int erfere with the penalty imposed in a disciplinary proceeding provided the penalt y imposed shocks the judicial conscience. In the instant case, keeping in view the nature of charges proved agains t the appellant, in our considered view, the penalty imposed by the appellate au thority vide dated 26.12.98 cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal and hence t he same stands dismissed.