JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Petitioner before this Court was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. on 28.02.2008 and till 22.02.2013 he was posted at Electricity Distribution Division-I, Muzaffarnagar. Petitioner thereafter was promoted on the post of Accountant on 23.02.2013 and was transferred and posted at Electricity Distribution Division-I, Baraut, Baghpat and he remained their till 31.07.2016. 2. Later on petitioner was transferred on 31.07.2016 at Electricity Distribution Division-III, Shamli and he remained there till 19.07.2021 and subsequently transferred at Electricity Urban Distribution Division Town Hall, Muzaffarnagar and presently he is working there as an Accountant. 3. Petitioner has suffered with a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged misconduct when he was posted at Electricity Distribution Division-III Shamli from 31.07.2016 to 19.07.2021 and present case is arising of a punishment order passed in pursuance of said disciplinary proceeding. 4. Few facts which are not disputed so far as charges are concerned, are that in 2009-10 a huge electricity bill remained outstanding against a consumer, namely, M/s Sikka Papers Ltd. and its connection was disconnected on 01.11.2009. Subsequently notices for recovery as required under Sections 3 and 5 of Uttar Pradesh Government Electrical Undertakings (Dues Recovery) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1958”) were issued to realize the electricity dues of Rs. 214.87 lacs. Demand notice under Section 3 was issued on 13.11.2009 and under Section 5 was issued on 14.12.2009 however, it appears that recovery was not executed and nothing happened thereafter. 5. At later stage, M/s Sikka Papers Ltd. approached National Company Law Tribunal under I.B. Code 2016 to declare it insolvent. Accordingly vide order dated 22.05.2019 a Resolution Professional was appointed and a notice was published in a newspaper, namely, “The Pioneer” on 26.04.2019, however, the Electricity Department does not participate in it in the capacity of Financial Creditor, as such a loss was occurred. 6. In aforesaid circumstances, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against petitioner, the then Accountant at Shamli that when he was working at Shamli between 2016 to 2021, he was not diligent to pursue the huge recovery of Rs. 214.87 lacs since neither he pursued the demand notices issued under Sections 3 and 5 of Act, 1958 nor he pursued the remedy to file claim in insolvency proceeding, despite a notice was published on 26.04.2019 when petitioner was Accountant at Shamli. 7. 214.87 lacs since neither he pursued the demand notices issued under Sections 3 and 5 of Act, 1958 nor he pursued the remedy to file claim in insolvency proceeding, despite a notice was published on 26.04.2019 when petitioner was Accountant at Shamli. 7. Petitioner submitted his reply to charge sheet and a Temporary Inquiry Committee-5 considered the charges and reply to it and finally submitted an inquiry report dated 16.10.2024 whereby petitioner was exonerated from both charges. Relevant part of inquiry report, so far as charges no. 1 and 2 is concerned, is reproduced hereinafter: 8. Inquiry report of Temporary Inquiry Committee-5 was submitted to Managing Director, who disagreed with exoneration so far as charge no. 1 is concerned and held that it was proved in part and, therefore, a notice dated 28.12.2024 was issued to petitioner, to which petitioner submitted reply dated 10.01.2025 and again denied charge and specifically stated that it was not sole responsibility of him to pursue the notices issued under Sections 3 and 5 of Act, 1958 and notices were issued much prior to when petitioner remained posted as Accountant at Shamli. 9. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 02.05.2025 was passed by way of an Office Memorandum, whereby petitioner was found partly guilty of charge no. 1 that when he was working between 2016 to 2021, i.e., for five years as an Accountant at Shamli, he did not notice the huge outstanding of Rs. 214.87 lacs of a consumer namely, M/s Sikka Paper Ltd. and has not pursued thereafter. However, no reference was made so far as proceeding under Insolvency Act is concerned. By means of impugned order not only punishment of ‘Censure’ and “withholding of one financial increment with cumulative effect” was passed but a punishment to recover Rs. 214.87 lacs was also imposed on petitioner. Relevant part of impugned order is mentioned hereinafter: 10. Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that demand notices against consumer under Sections 3 and 5 of Act, 1958 were issued on 13.11.2009 and 14.12.2009 whereas petitioner took charge as an Accountant at Shamli on 31.07.2016, i.e., notices were issued about more than six years ago. No allegation was made against earlier posted Accountants. Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that demand notices against consumer under Sections 3 and 5 of Act, 1958 were issued on 13.11.2009 and 14.12.2009 whereas petitioner took charge as an Accountant at Shamli on 31.07.2016, i.e., notices were issued about more than six years ago. No allegation was made against earlier posted Accountants. Impugned order was passed mainly on a premise that petitioner was not careful and diligent to identity the huge outstanding and to inform it to Higher Authorities and failed to pursue it. However, an Accountant cannot be held entirely responsible that he was not able to point out a recovery for which demand notices were issued more than six years back when he took charge. The Higher Authorities have also not taken note of any huge outstanding or call for record from Accountant, i.e., petitioner during his tenure of about five years at Shamli. A reason was assigned in impugned order that billing data list was not published, however, it was not the entire responsibility of petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that so far insolvency proceeding is concerned, notice was published in a nationalized newspaper which does not has much circulation at Shamli and otherwise also it cannot be entire responsibility of petitioner to take note of notice published in newspaper. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge was partially proved and without any specific finding about loss the punishment of recovery of entire amount, i.e., Rs. 214.87 lacs, from petitioner alone is a punishment which is shockingly disproportionate. 13. Per contra, Sri Krishna Agrawal, Advocate and Sri Vinayak Ranjan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikeya Saran, Advocate for respondents, have supported the impugned order that petitioner was granted opportunity not only before Temporary Inquiry Committee but before Disciplinary Authority also. He was put on notice of disagreement and after considering his reply, it was held that petitioner was required to be more diligent towards recovery and it was his duty to procure information of consumers having huge outstanding, i.e., under HV-02 category, from his earlier Accountants or Executive Engineer, however, he was failed to take requisite information. Due procedure was followed and punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. 14. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 15. Due procedure was followed and punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. 14. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 15. In the present case, admitted position of facts, as already mentioned in earlier paragraphs, are that demand notices against a consumer for demand of Rs. 214.87 lacs was issued in the year 2009, however, it was not pursued either by earlier Accountants or by Higher Authorities or by petitioner when he was posted between 2016 to 2021. Similarly, no application was filed in insolvency proceeding of consumer. The Temporary Inquiry Committee has exonerated petitioner from both charges, however, Disciplinary Authority put a disagreement so far as charge no. 1 is concerned that it was proved in part and notice was issued to petitioner, which was replied by him and finally impugned order was passed. Therefore, the Court is of the view that principle of natural justice and due procedure was complied with. 16. Now the only question is, whether charge is proved in part on a perverse finding and in case charge is found to be partly proved, whether punishments, specifically the punishment of recovery of amount of Rs. 214.87 lacs from petitioner, is shockingly disproportionate. 17. First charge was proved in part and for that the Court takes note of impugned order that during tenure of five years between 2016 to 2021 petitioner was required to get information from his earlier Accountants, specifically about the consumers having huge outstanding under HV-02 category, however, petitioner remained careless since he has not sought information. 18. Therefore, if impugned order is taken on face of it, the maximum proved charge against petitioner is that he was not diligent to procure information from his earlier Accountants and failed to pursue recovery process initiated about six years ago. It may be a case that petitioner was not diligent enough but whether it would be sufficient to hold that he was entirely responsible so much as that a recovery of entire outstanding amount of Rs. 214.87 lacs be recovered from petitioner by way of punishment. For that the Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Sh. Raj Kumar, 2026 INSC 313 and relevant paras 9 and 10 of the judgment are reproduced hereinafter: “9. 214.87 lacs be recovered from petitioner by way of punishment. For that the Court takes note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank vs. Sh. Raj Kumar, 2026 INSC 313 and relevant paras 9 and 10 of the judgment are reproduced hereinafter: “9. What follows from the precedents noted above is that courts should exercise restraint while interdicting orders of punishment. Normally, no court in exercise of its power of judicial review should interfere with an order of punishment imposed on a delinquent as a measure of disciplinary action by the competent authority and substitute its own judgment for that of the former. This is premised on the reason that the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the situation, and the requirements of maintaining discipline within the work force. While it is not the law that the courts should invariably stay at a distance when legality and/or propriety of a particular punishment is questioned, judicial scrutiny of the disciplinary action by way of punishment could arise only if the circumstances are such that no reasonable person would Impose the punishment which is questioned and/or such punishment has the effect of shocking the conscience of the court. To put in simpler words, Interference could be warranted if It appeals to the court that the disciplinary authority has 'used a sledgehammer for cracking a nut'. A punishment, which is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate and is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, proved to have been committed in course of inquiry or otherwise, would border on arbitrariness and offend Article 14 of the Constitution. 10. Where a court, upon due consideration, arrives at the conclusion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, its intervention is circumscribed in nature. Judicial scrutiny and interference, if at all, has to be based on reasons in support of the court's ultimate satisfaction that the disciplinary authority has faltered in the exercise of his discretion. In such a situation, the court may adopt one of two courses: it may remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration of the punishment; or, in the rarest of cases, it may substitute the punishment while supporting such a course with cogent reasons.” 19. The Court finds that though charge no. In such a situation, the court may adopt one of two courses: it may remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration of the punishment; or, in the rarest of cases, it may substitute the punishment while supporting such a course with cogent reasons.” 19. The Court finds that though charge no. 1 is found to be proved in part but there is no reason assigned why punishment of recovery of entire amount is imposed only against petitioner. There is no finding that petitioner does not remain diligent so much as it resulted into aforesaid financial loss and for that petitioner was solely responsible. No responsibility was imposed on earlier Accountants and Higher Authorities. There was no charge that department has suffered financial loss. There is no finding that due to misconduct petitioner has gained monetary or any other benefit. Therefore, the Court finds that punishment of ‘Censure’ and “stoppage of one financial increment with cumulative effect” might have proportionate punishment but punishment of recovery of Rs. 214.87 lacs only from petitioner without any reason and without even a charge to this effect, the Court is of the view that this punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 20. In view of above, though in normal circumstances matter can be remanded for consideration afresh but on consideration of above reason, punishment of recovery of a huge amount, being without any reason or basis, cannot sustain. Accordingly, impugned order dated 02.05.2025, to the extent of recovery of Rs. 214.87 lacs from petitioner, is hereby set aside, without interfering with other two punishments. 21. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.