IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15660 of 2008 Between: 1 The General Manager, Ordnance Factory Medak, Yeddumailaram - 502 205, Medak District - 502 205, Medak District, A.P. 2 Addl. Director General of Ordnance Factories, Armoured Vehicles Headquarters, Avadi, Chennai - 600 054. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Shir N. Prasanna Kumar, S/o. N. Sunder Rao, H.No. 25-4-244, Vishnupuri, Kazipet (P.O.) - 506 003. Warangal District, A.P. .....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 to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to OA No. 632 of 2006 in order dt. 27-3- 2008 and quash the same and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitional or pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No : 15660 of 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to quash the order dated 27-03-2008 in O.A.No.632 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. The respondent while working as Charge Man-II (T) in the Ordinance Factory of the petitioners, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him alleging that he remained absent unauthorizedly for a period of 77 days from 16-10-2002 to 31.12.2002. The respondent submitted his explanation, however, Inquiry Oﬃcer having not satisﬁed with the explanation submitted by the respondent, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report holding that the respondent is guilty of the charges framed against him. Based on the said report, the respondent was called for to explain as to why necessary action shall not be taken against him, for which he submitted his explanation. However, the Disciplinary Authority passed ﬁnal orders dated 06-06-2005 removing him from service. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred the appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority conﬁrmed the same. Against, the said order, the respondent ﬁled O.A. before the Tribunal. After taking into consideration the entire material on record, the Tribunal held that the punishment of removal from service imposed against the respondent for his unauthorized absence is unconscionable and grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment and impose some other punishment other than the removal or dismissal from service. 3. The learned Government Pleader contended that once Tribunal upheld the ﬁndings of the Inquiry Oﬃcer as conﬁrmed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in point Nos.1 and 2, it ought to have answered the point No.3 in favour of the petitioners, but, the Tribunal grossly erred in answering the point No.3 in favour of the respondent and remitting back the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment and impose some other punishment other than the removal or dismissal from service. He relied on a decision reported in K.Natarajan v. Station Commander, Air Force Station, Hyderabad and others[1] wherein it was held: “It is well known that the High Court’s power of Judicial review of the disciplinary action against the delinquent employee is very limited. T he High Court can interfere with the order of punishment if it is found to be vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules or regulations or the principles of natural justice and such violation is found to have prejudiced the cause of the delinquent. T he High Court can also nullify the order of punishment if the ﬁnding of guilty recorded by the enquiring /Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence or is inﬂuenced by extraneous factors/considerations. T he doctrine of proportionality and Wednesbury Rule can be invoked by the High Court if it is convinced that the punishment imposed by the employer is per se arbitrary/capricious or wholly disproportionate to the misconduct found proved.” 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has exercised powers vested in it and it has not substituted the punishment, but has merely set-aside the order dated 06-06-2005 with regard to the punishment of removal from service and remitted the matter to the appellate authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the punishment of removal from service imposed against the respondent for his unauthorized absence is unconscionable and grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Admittedly, there is no charge of any misappropriation or theft against the respondent. 5. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any legal inﬁrmity so as to call for any interference with the impugned order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There is no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ​ _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J 22nd July,2008. Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] 2007 (6) ALD 122 (DB)