JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, C.J
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 5-7-2000. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent although the name of Shri Ramajagadeesan is shown in the cause-list.
2. The respondent was an employee of the appellant bank. He was charge-sheeted on 5-4-1991 on the charge that he continued to be the Correspondent of Immanuel Teacher Training Institute, Vallam, Tirunelveli in spite of the instructions of the bank and he was said to have misguided the bank by giving a statement that he had resigned from the said post. After an enquiry, in which he was given an opportunity of hearing, he was discharged from service. However, in appeal, the punishment was modified and he was given the punishment of withholding of three increment with cumulative effect. He filed the writ petition and the learned single Judge reduced the punishment to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The finding of guilty has, however, not been disturbed by the learned single Judge and in fact, the learned single Judge could not have disturbed it as it was a finding of fact.
3. As regards the punishment, the Supreme Court in APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL v. A.K. CHOPRA observed as follows:
“Even in so far as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty”
4. In our opinion, the punishment imposed by the appellate authority was not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct and hence, the learned single Judge was not justified in altering it.
5. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the impugned order of the learned single Judge and allow this appeal. Connected WAMP No. 1478 of 2003 is closed.