THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.4895 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GMJ) This writ petition is filed by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, represented through its Secretary, seeking to quash the order dated 04.12.2008 passed in O.A.No.320 of 2004 filed by the first respondent herein on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the O.A. The first respondent, while was working as Superintending Engineer in the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, applied and proceeded on leave with effect from 16.08.2001 for twelve days and thereafter he did not resume the duty despite repeated directions of the competent authority. He refused to join duty ignoring the Government’s instructions in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge sheet, vide memo dated 07.05.2002 was served on him to submit defence and, in turn, he filed statement of defence, vide letter dated 17.05.2002. As the statement of defence found not satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed to conduct inquiry. Since the first respondent did not attend the proceedings and submitted no objection for ex parte inquiry, ex parte inquiry was conducted and accordingly, inquiry officer forwarded his inquiry report dated 26.08.2002 to the disciplinary authority, furnishing a copy of the same to the first respondent with a direction to submit representation before the disciplinary authority regarding the observations made by him (inquiry officer). Accordingly, the first respondent submitted representation dated 18.09.2002. Considering the Inquiry report and the representation of the first respondent, the disciplinary authority took the tentative view of imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the first respondent and thereafter the case was referred to the Union Public Service Commission for their concurrence. The Commission recommended the penalty of dismissal of the first respondent from the service. Then the disciplinary authority, based on the recommendation of the Commission, imposed penalty of dismissal of the first respondent from service. Therefore, the first respondent preferred an appeal to the Ministry on 10.11.2003 and since the appeal did not hold ground, the same was communicated to the first respondent, vide letter dated 17.02.2004. Therefore, the first respondent filed O.A.No.320 of 2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, partly dismissed the O.A. upholding the findings of the Inquiry Officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority regarding the charges framed against the first respondent and partly allowed the O.A. holding that the punishment of dismissal from service is highly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, and setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service and remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment and to impose any other punishment other than dismissal from services. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service is severe and therefore, the Tribunal rightly set aside the same and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration regarding the quantum of punishment. Hence, the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 04th March, 2010 GHN