( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5534 OF 2010 Union of India & Others .. Petitioners Versus Rajendra Sadashiv Lalsare .. Respondent Mr. Ruturaj Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate for sole respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 08.10.2010 P.C. :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 26th February, 2010, passed in Original Application No. 283 of 2004, thereby quashing and setting aside the appellate and reversional orders and remanding the matter with a direction to reconsider the case of the applicant/respondent and impose lesser penalty commensurate with the spirit of the rule of the Government and the discussion made in the judgment. ( 2 ) 2. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in allowing the application and remanding the matter for awarding lesser punishment. He submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the earlier conduct of the petitioner. 3. Mr. S.D. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of sole respondent supports the impugned order. 4. Learned Tribunal relying on Rule 108 of Postal Manual has found that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate with the charge levelled against the petitioner. Learned Tribunal in para 7.1 of the judgment has found that the delinquent respondent has failed to pay cash of Rs. 1037/- on the very same day of receipt. Learned Counsel for the respondent stated that it is not proved that the respondent has either fabricated the record or not deposited the amount at all. 5. The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Ors. ( 3 ) V/s. Hazarilal, AIR 2008 S.C.1300, has held that the principle of Wednesbury reasonableness has been replaced by the principle of proportionality. It has been held that the punishment to be awarded in the departmental proceedings has to be commensurate with the charge levelled against the employee. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the petition is dismissed. [A.A. SAYED,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] snk/2010/OCT10/wp5534.10