IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13889 of 2009 Between: 1 Survey of India, Dehra Dun -248 001 (Uttaranchal), Rep. by Additional Surveyor General. 2 Survey of India, South Eastern Circle (PMP), (Now it is restructured as APGDC) Uppal, Hyderabad. Rep. by Director. 3 Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110 016. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND B. Solomon, S/o. B. Devadanam, R/o. Plot NO. 21, Ajay Nagar, Bandalaguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed in O.A.No. 717 of 2007 dated 26-3-2009 from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.BRAHMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: DR.K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.717 of 2007, dated 26.3.2009. The applicant/respondent herein while working as Plane Tabler Grade-III of No.43 Party in South South Eastern Circle (SSEC) of Survey of India was served with articles of charge for his unauthorized absence for field duty at Renigunta during the period from 1.1.1999 to 19.4.1999 in spite of receiving the movement order from the officer-in- charge of the said party and thereby violating the provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965. On the basis of the charge memo, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and he was imposed punishment of dismissal from service. The record reveals that earlier also the respondent committed similar misconduct and disobeyed the orders of the superior officers and did not perform the field duty during the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and for the said misconduct, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and he was awarded punishment of withholding of increments. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 26.3.2009 held that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges proved and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment imposed on the applicant. The Tribunal also observed that a punishment short of removal viz., compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice considering the fact that the applicant has served the Department for 18 years. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the fact that the respondent herein, applicant in the said O.A., has repeatedly disobeyed the orders of his superiors and the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed punishment of removal, the Tribunal was not at all justified in remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment imposed. No doubt, indiscipline, that too committing repeatedly, cannot be tolerated. But, considering the fact that the indiscipline was abstaining from duty and not of any other kind of indisciplinary act or misappropriation etc., and even by imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement also, the applicant in O.A.717 of 2007 would be out of service, we feel it is not a case for interference with the order of the Tribunal and we suggest that instead of removal from service, he may be imposed punishment of compulsory retirement so that he may get some benefits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ___________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 14.7.2009 kpr