THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.13362 of 2000 ORDER: (Per BPR,J) Though this matter has been coming up for quite some time and it was heard on 16.11.2009 and also on 17.11.2009, none appeared for the respondent nor there was any representation. Even today, though the matter is listed under the caption for judgment, when the matter is called, none appears for the respondent. Hence, we have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners again and disposing of the writ petition. The short question involved in this writ petition is with regard to the scope of Rule 8 of EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) for effecting the nature of punishment. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent herein joined as EDMC/PKR in Postal Department on 07.07.1982. Later, he applied for the departmental examination. He was asked to produce the original certificates of date of birth and bonafide from the school. However, on verification of the said certificates filed by the respondent, it was found that the respondent has filed false certificates as they were showing different dates of birth. There is no dispute to these aspects. Therefore, a charge memo was issued to the respondent on 14.10.1996 and disciplinary enquiry was initiated. After considering the explanation submitted by the respondent and culmination of the departmental enquiry, the second petitioner passed final orders on 18.06.1998 imposing punishment on the respondent by reducing the length of service put up by him by 10 months 23 days. Since the first petitioner felt that the punishment order was not in accordance with the Rules, he remitted the matter vide memo dated 03.11.1998 to the second petitioner for finalizing as to the imposition of punishment on the respondent. Challenging the validity of the said memo the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and filed O.A.No.1565 of 1998, which was disposed of on 07.02.2000 with a direction to make an entry in the service record of the respondent reducing his qualifying service by 10 years 23 days. Hence, this writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that having regard to the fact that types of punishments as provided specifically for under Clause (i) to (vi) in the Rules, the punishment, which has been imposed on the respondent is totally beyond the scope. In this respect, there cannot be any dispute to the effect that unless and until the Rules provide for the different types of punishment, it is only a lesser punishment, which has to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the nature of punishment imposed in the present case is that reducing of length of service put up by the respondent by 10 months 23 days, which is not a contemplated nature of punishment under the Rules. Further, having regard to the fact that the very date of birth is in dispute, there cannot be any reduction of the length of service. Once the types of punishments are statutorily prescribed, other options cannot be exercised. It has to be one amongst them, basing on the gravity. In such cases, there is no scope for any indulgence. Further length of service is a fixed notion. Increase or decreased thereof has no place. In view of the same, we are of the view that the punishment imposed is beyond the scope and not the one contemplated under the Rules, hence, wholly without jurisdiction. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Further, it is also brought to our notice that the disciplinary authority namely Sri Ch.Chandraiah has passed the order of punishment after relinquishment. Even in this count also, the Memo dated 18.06.1998 is not sustainable and needs to be set aside. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the memo dated 18.06.1998 only to the extent of imposing of the said punishment on the respondent. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take up the matter again and pass fresh orders in accordance with the Rules. Consequently, the order dated 07.02.2000 passed in O.A.No.1565 of 1998 also stands set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO, J G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 18.11.2009 va