( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4469 OF 1998 Badrinarayan s/o. Devilal Bhangdiya, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Post Office Road, Pandu Pahelwan's Wada, Hingoli, Dist. Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Side, Mumbai - 32. 3. The District Judge, District Court, Parbhani - 431 401. .. Respondents. 4. Shri P.G. Kheole, Additional District Judge and Enquiry Officer, .. Respondent no.4 District Court, deleted. Parbhani - 431 401. ....................... ( 2 ) Smt. Asha D. Rakh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Respondent no.4 deleted. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 30TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, working as a Senior Clerk. The departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on various charges, such as, insubordination, suppressing the facts about the earlier communication, and pressurizing the Additional District & Sessions Judge. The inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer, on completion of the inquiry, submitted the report. The disciplinary authority, accepting the said report, removed the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an administrative appeal. The appellate authority dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. The same is ( 3 ) subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2. Smt. A.D. Rakh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. The petitioner was denied right to engage a lawyer, more so, when the Presenting Officer was well versed in law. The Inquiry Officer was bias and that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges. 3. Mr. V.D. Rakh, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, has contended that the inquiry has been conducted properly. The principles of natural justice have been adhered. The charges are proved and, as such, the punishment imposed is proper. 4. We have gone through the charges. Even assuming that the said charges have been proved, the punishment imposed is too disproportionate. It is a settled law, that the Wednesbury's principle of unreasonableness is substituted by doctrine of proportionality. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of State of M.P. & others Vs. Hazarilal (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1300), wherein the Apex Court in para 12 has observed thus : ( 4 ) " Furthermore the legal parameters of judicial review has undergone a change. Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness has been replaced by the doctrine of proportionality. [See : Indian Airlines Ltd. Vs. Prabha D. Kumari (2007 AIR SCW 103 = ((2006) 11 SCC 67); State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava (2006 AIR SCW 1149 = ((2006) 3 SCC 276), and M.P. Gangadharan and another vs. State of Kerala and others (2006 AIR SCW 3120 = AIR 2006 SC 2360)]. " 5. Removal of service would be too grave a punishment compared to the charges which are levied. The charges against the petitioner only pertain to insubordination on some occasion. The charges are not with regard to lack of integrity or dishonesty. Even the charges of insubordination are not so grave so as to inflict such a punishment upon him. The charges of insubordination are framed, on the count, that the petitioner stated that he would only do the work in whose place he has been transferred. The other charges, with regard to making a representation to the higher officials, cannot amount to a misconduct or insubordination. 6. In the light of the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner i.e. removal from service, is too disproportionate. In our view, ( 5 ) denial of wages from the year 1996 to 2010 would be a sufficient punishment. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 19-11-1996, passed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani, thereby removing the petitioner from service, and the communication dated 24-9-1997, issued to the petitioner, thereby informing that his administrative appeal has been rejected, are quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of three months from today. (iii) It is made clear, that the petitioner shall be entitled to continuity in service from the date of his removal from service till the date of actual reinstatement. He shall also be entitled to all other consequential benefits flowing from continuity in service, except back wages. (iv) It is made clear, that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period from the date of removal from service, in the year 1996, till the date of reinstatement. ( 6 ) 8. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4469