PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) In my view this is a fit case for passing interim order staying the operation of the impugned order, dated March 1, 1993 passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jhansi being respondent No. 2. 2 In the instant writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order of punishment contained in impugned order, dated March 1, 1993 passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jhansi being respondent No. 2. By the aforesaid order the petitioner's pay-scale was reduced for minimum five years. 3 On a statutory appeal being preferred, the appellate authority, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Jail), Kanpur Region, Kanpur being respondent No. 1 has affirmed the aforesaid order by appellate order, dated October 20,1994. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of admission of this writ petition submits that enquiry was held ex parte, and, on the basis of alleged period of absence for one day, the punishment imposed is dispro portionate to the charge, and, as such this Court is fully justified to interfere with the matter. 5. In this connection learned counsel appearing on behalf of the peti tioner has placed strong reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1983 SC 454-Bhagat Ram v. Slate of Himachal Pradesh, which has hetm already followed at a subsequent stage in the case of Ranjeet Thakur v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 2386. 6 This court is aware of the aforesaid two judgments which were based on the 'judgment of House of Lords, in the case of Council of Service Union v. Minister for Service, (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL), wherein Lord Diplock observed that "anything disproportionate should be discarded". 7 Although the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court which was based on view expressed by House of Lords has been sought to distinguish in the later judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Parmanand, reported in 1989 SC 1105, wherein Court was of the view that power which can be exercised by Supreme Court in a proceeding under Article 136 of the 8. In view of the pronouncement of Supreme Court, this court is of the view that the aforesaid judgment in case of Parmanand (supra) arose out of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution from High Court and as such, in that view of the matter I do not find any reason that this Court is powerless to interfere with the extreme punishment which is "too harsh" at the admission stage of this writ petition. ' 9. Accordingly, this Court proposes to pass an interim order to stay both the impugned orders, dated March 1, 1993 (Annexure 7) and October 20 1994 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1, respectively to the writ petition and the petitioner will be entitled to pay full back wages without reduction of scale of pay in accordance with the orders of this Court. 10. Counter-affidavit is to be filed within five weeks from today Rejoinder-affidavit, it any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 11. List this writ petition for admission immediately after the expiry of the aforesaid period. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges which will be communicated by the petition to the respondents. Appeal allowed. .;