3. It is to be noticed that though the names of the drivers against whom allegations of availing the benefit of manipulated leave period and the leave particulars are shown in the affidavit, they have not been made parties to the writ petition. Even according to the petitioner, proceedings were initiated against the 8th respondent, the Head Clerk, who was responsible for the alleged misconduct and punishment was imposed. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the punishment imposed on the 8th respondent is not in consonance with the gravity of misconduct. However, the petitioner is no way concerned and does not have any locus to question the same. Having regard to the nature of charge and the explanation offered by the delinquent employees, it is for the disciplinary authority to examine the issue of imposing appropriate punishment. When the petitioner has brought the alleged misconduct of the 8th respondent to the notice of the respondents, appropriate action was taken and punishment was imposed on him. It also appears from the affidavit that there are some disputes between the petitioner and respondents 6, 7 and 8 and the present writ petition has been filed to use the authority of this Court
