HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR W.P. No. 5429 of 2011 Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar) This writ petition has been filed praying to issue an order particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to declare the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 19.10.2002, vide proceedings No.696/2002 (C.No.A3/PR/32/SAR/01), in dismissing the petitioner from service who was working as Police Constable, as confirmed by the orders of the APAT, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 11595 of 2002, dated 21.01.2008, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner into service or to modify the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. The petitioner’s specific case is that he was sick from 05.04.2001 to 03.06.2001. He submitted medical certificate from the competent Doctor and that the said period was treated as leave without pay, but however, considering the punishments imposed previously now he is dismissed from service. It is also his submission that in similar circumstances the respondents have considered the case of one S. Balakrishna, PC 428 of SAR, CPL, Amberpet. The charge against the said employee was that he was visiting the resident of UT prisoners allowing them to move freely with their families and consuming alcohol while on escort duty. In that case the punishment of removal from service was modified to that of compulsory retirement. It is also the case of the petitioner that one Mr. D. Babu Prasad, PC 130, SAR, CPL, Amberpet, Hyderabad, who was charged with unauthorized absence from 10.08.2000 to 19.09.2000, when approached the respondents, the punishment of dismissal from service was modified and he was reinstated into service. Thus, the main submission of the petitioner is that though his case is similar to the case of Mr. D. Babu Prasad as shown above, but his mercy petition was dismissed by the first respondent and he has been discriminated. It is also his case that he had served for more than two decades in the police force and that there are five dependents depending upon him and that the dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the petitioner has submitted medical certificate and that he was admitted to duty and that the authorities failed to consider the medical certificate furnished by the petitioner and taking into consideration the earlier punishments which were awarded to the petitioner now he is being dismissed from service. It is also his contention that the cases of similarly placed employees were considered and in case of unauthorized absence of one D. Babu Prasad, PC 130, the punishment was set aside and he was reinstated into service, but whereas in case of petitioner his mercy petition has been dismissed. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the petitioner is a habitual absentee and that he was awarded several punishments in the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 and in spite of the same there is no change in his attitude and in the above circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service is reasonable. As seen from the record, the earlier punishments awarded to the petitioner were for the charges of unauthorized absentism from duty from 16.05.1998 to 30.07.1998, 19.03.2000 to 29.11.2000, 04.09.1999 to 20.12.1999, 28.09.2001 to 15.10.2001 and on 05.02.2002. There were also two other charges i.e., neglect on duty on 16.09.2001 and irresponsible behaviour while on guard duty on 03.07.2001. In all those cases, punishments were awarded, which includes censure and withholding of increments for one year and two years with and without cumulative effect. From the above, it is clear that the last punishment awarded to the petitioner was for the alleged unauthorized absence from duty on 05.02.2002. The present charge also pertains to the unauthorized absence from 05.04.2001 to 03.06.001. Admittedly, the petitioner had produced medical certificate for the period from 05.04.2001 to 03.06.2001. He reported to duty on 04.06.2001 with medical certificate. However, he was declared as deserter from 05.04.2001 and he was admitted to duty on 08.06.2001 pending enquiry. It appears that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry. However, he submitted the medical certificate, but the same was not considered. Though the previous conduct is also relevant, but what is to be seen is that when the petitioner has produced a medical certificate, the authorities ought to have considered the same, particularly when the case of similarly situated person for the same allegation was considered. Justice and fair play require that even the administrative actions must be fair and reasonable and should not result in indiscriminate or unequal treatment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, even if it is held that the misconduct has been proved. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 11595 of 2002 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad, and since the appeal filed by the petitioner was pending, the said OA was closed, by an order dated 21.01.2008, giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the pending appeal and revision. There are laches on the part of the petitioner and it appears that he has not intimated the authorities as to when he was admitted in the hospital and subsequently he has not attended the enquiry. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since it appears that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the proved misconduct, we hold that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and to award any other punishment which appears to be just and reasonable to the proved misconduct other than the punishment of dismissal from service, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 07.03.2011 KA/Nsr