HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.25274 OF 2009 Dt.20.11.2009 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary, Home (Police.C) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners And K.Rama (since died), AR PC 1684 K.Kranti Kumari w/o.late Rama Rao .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.25274 OF 2009 ORDER : (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Respondents 1 to 4 in O.A. seek to question the final orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.4924 of 2003, dated 1.9.2009. The said O.A. was filed by the deceased applicant during his lifetime questioning the order of removal passed against him by the 4th petitioner herein and confirmed by the 2nd petitioner herein by order dated 7.12.1999. The said punishment of removal came to be imposed on him on the ground that he is a deserter and he remain unauthorisedly absent for 50 days. The deceased applicant had given explanation that his wife was unwell and thereafter he fell ill, and as such he could not attend to duty. He also alleged that though he reported to duty much earlier, the officer concerned did not allow him to join etc. However, disbelieving the said allegations the punishment of removal was confirmed by the appellate authority and in further revision filed by the applicant before the Additional Director General of Police, he filed medical certificate substantiating that he was unwell. However, the Additional Director General of Police vide orders dated 7.12.1999 rejected the said revision on the ground that the applicant cannot file the medical certificate for the first time in revision during the revisional hearing. The mercy petition filed by the applicant before the Government also dismissed vide memo, dated 24.6.2000. Thereafter, he filed the present O.A. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the petitioners. We have also perused the order of the Tribunal as well as the orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities. It is no doubt true that the respondent- deceased applicant was absent unauthorisedly for a period of 50 days and he has tried to produce the medical certificate covering his illness belatedly at the time of hearing of the revision petition. However, it is also on record that the said respondent died pending O.A. and has served for about 18 years. In his representation he stated that he had earned 4 rewards and as such his case deserves sympathetic consideration. The Tribunal noticed that the charge in the disciplinary case was only with regard to the unauthorized absence for the aforesaid period and nothing about the past record was taken into consideration. The charge so far as unauthorized absence is concerned was proved and punishment of removal was imposed. The Tribunal felt that the finding of the disciplinary authority with respect of the charge needs no interference. Keeping the past record of the deceased applicant the Tribunal also felt that the punishment of removal was unjustified and disproportionate and accordingly modified the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement from the date of the order of the 4th petitioner. The said order is in challenge in this writ petition. After examining the record and after hearing the learned Government Pleader, we are of the view that the Tribunal, rightly, did not interfere with the finding of the disciplinary authority with regard to the charge having been proved against the deceased applicant. Since the past record was not the subject matter of the charge at all and in view of the fact that earlier his wife was not well and he was also not well and though he failed to produce the medical certificate, keeping in view the overall circumstances of the matter, we are of the view that the punishment of removal imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the delinquency and therefore the Tribunal had rightly interfered with the said punishment by substituting to that of compulsory retirement. Under our certiorari jurisdiction, we are not persuaded to accept the contentions of the petitioners that the order of the Tribunal requires correction by this Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 20.11.2009 kpr