JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of :- (i) Order of punishment as contained in Memo No.290 dated 22.11.2017 passed in Departmental Proceeding No.14/2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby service of the petitioner was dismissed. (ii) Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.502 dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the punishment order. (iii) Revisional Order as contained in Memo No.256 dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), whereby the ‘Memorial Revision Petition’ preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Revisional Authority. (iv) Order as contained in Memo No.4429/ Ranchi, dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), whereby ‘Mercy Appeal’ preferred by the petitioner was rejected. 1.1. The petitioner further claims reinstatement in service, seniority along with all other consequential benefits and payment of full wages, arrears of salary, along with statutory as well as penal interest. 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are vague. He submits that there are two charges against the petitioner in which Charge No.2 is a mere repetition of the previous charge framed against the petitioner vide Memo No.329 dated 30.08.2014 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), for which the petitioner had already been punished. So far as Charge No.1 is concerned, he refuted the same while referring to Letters dated 30.06.2016, 21.11.2017 and Affidavit dated 25.11.2017 [Annexure-6 (Series) to this writ petition], furnished by Golu Kumar, wherein he stated that he knew Ramij Raja (petitioner herein) since before and he has returned his money, which he took as a loan, but due to delay in repayment of his money, though it was bonafide, he with an apprehension of losing money, filed the complaint. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the order of punishment does not warrant any interference, as the petitioner was constantly committing forgery. He submits that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally for committing forgery and misappropriating money from others for his personal gain. He submits that in the present Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing. He submits that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner was proceeded against departmentally for committing forgery and misappropriating money from others for his personal gain. He submits that in the present Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing. He lastly submits that the Departmental Proceeding was conducted in a fair manner and the petitioner was rightly punished for the proved misconduct. 5. The expose of the facts involved in this writ petition is as follows:- 5.1. The petitioner is a Constable. 5.2. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), wherein it was alleged that while posted at Police Headquarters, he has committed gross indiscipline, dereliction of duty and fraud. 5.3. First charge against the petitioner is that he flouted the Government Orders and Rules by taking a motorcycle from another person and by pretending himself to be the owner of the said motorcycle, tending to sell it to one Golu Kumar, took Rs.53,000/-, from him and misappropriated the same. 5.4. Second charge is that on previous occasion also, the petitioner in the capacity of Mess-Incharge, while undergoing C.I.A.T. Training at Musabani, Jamshedpur, purchased materials of Mess for a sum of Rs.30,915/-, from one Ashok Kumar Agarwal, from his grocery shop on credit and despite there being adequate funds in the coffers, he did not pay the same and misappropriated it for his personal gain. 5.5. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally. The Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry, submitted the enquiry report. Pursuant to the said Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the aforesaid impugned order of punishment. 6. In this case, admittedly the charge which has been proved against the petitioner is that he tried to sell a vehicle pretending himself to be the owner, which he was not. He intended to sell the vehicle after taking advance but after taking money, had not given the vehicle and it has come to the knowledge of Golu Kumar that the petitioner has no vehicle. 7. Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, in my opinion, the quantum of punishment of dismissal does not commensurate with the proved charge and is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 7.1. So far as second charge is concerned, the same cannot be a charge itself, as for the said misconduct the petitioner was already punished once. Considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, in my opinion, the quantum of punishment of dismissal does not commensurate with the proved charge and is too harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 7.1. So far as second charge is concerned, the same cannot be a charge itself, as for the said misconduct the petitioner was already punished once. At best the same could have been taken to be an example for fixing the quantum of punishment but the same cannot be a specific charge. 8. It is well settled that the Courts cannot assume the function of Disciplinary Authorities and decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent Authority. 8.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh , reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 , while observing that the judicial review of the quantum of punishment is available with a very limited scope has held as under:- “19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.” 9. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid judgments and observations made hereinabove, I find merit in this writ petition. 9.1. The Order of punishment as contained in Memo No.290 dated 22.11.2017 passed in Departmental Proceeding No.14/2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside. 9.2. Further, once the primary order of punishment is set aside, consequently whatever may be the nature of the Appellate Order or the Revisional Order, the same also needs to be quashed. 9.1. The Order of punishment as contained in Memo No.290 dated 22.11.2017 passed in Departmental Proceeding No.14/2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), is hereby set aside. 9.2. Further, once the primary order of punishment is set aside, consequently whatever may be the nature of the Appellate Order or the Revisional Order, the same also needs to be quashed. Thus, the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.502 dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by the Appellate Authority, the Revisional Order as contained in Memo No.256 dated 22.11.2019 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), passed by the Revisional Authority and Order as contained in Memo No.4429/ Ranchi, dated 22.11.2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), are also hereby set aside. 10. However, the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision on the quantum of punishment within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to pass an appropriate order. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed . No order as to costs. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.