THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26507 of 2000 ORAL ORDER: According to the petitoner, he joined in the service of Food Corporation of India with effect from 30.1.1978 and was promoted from time to time and at the relevant point of time, he was Assistant Mechanic-cum-Operator (A.M.C.O). According to him, he had put in 22 years of unblemished service. While that being so, second respondent issued a charge sheet dated 14.2.2000 alleging unauthorized absence from duties from 11.9.1999 to 8.2.2000. According to the petitoner, this period was already regularized by granting leave admissible to him, therefore, the question of unauthorized absenteeism does not arise. However, the respondent had issued a charge sheet and called for explanation of the petitoner though petitioner submitted explanation to the charge sheet, the same was not accepted and domestic enquiry was ordered and ultimately, the order of removal was passed on 27.4.2000. Aggrieved thereby, petitoner filed appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, however dismissed the same. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for petitoner strenuously contended that the petitioner had put in 22 years of unblemished service and there was only one charge. Though it was discussed in the body of the proceedings that on various spells, petitoner absented from duty, the only charge is that; “He had failed to maintain devotion to duty and serve the Corporation faithfully for which he was charged with contravention of Regulation 31, 32 of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. Further, he has failed to reform himself and attend his duties regularly and also work for the interest of the Corporation. His failure to change his attitude of irregular attendance to duties amounts to misconduct for which he was charged with Contravention of Regulation 32(A) Sub-Regulation (30) of Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971”. The learned counsel further sates that the charges are very vague as they could be and assuming that there is some misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the removal order passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the fourth respondent is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the impugned order passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the fourth respondent. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, petitioner had put in more than 22 years of unblemished service. A close examination of the impugned order does not speak as to what was the evidence let in and who are the witnesses examined and what are the documents marked in this regard. Nothing is clear from the order passed by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority, except saying that during different spells, petitioner absented himself from duties. The charges are as vague as they could be. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the order of removal passed by second respondent in a case of this nature is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Generally speaking, in a case of this nature, it is desirable to remand the matter to the disciplinary authority to give a fresh look as to imposing of punishment, but since the petitioner died and his wife is brought on record and now it is more than 10 years since the writ petition is pending, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to the litigation here itself. Under those circumstances, the order of removal passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the fourth respondent is set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as he was in service as on the date of his death, and all the retiral benefits of the petitoner shall be paid to his wife (second petitioner). However, it is made clear that the petitoner is not entitled to any back wages and other attendant benefits. The service shall be counted only for the purpose of retiral benefits from the date of suspension till the date of his death. If the petitoner is entitled to pension and other benefits, the same shall be settled within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 7.12.2010 DA/RKK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26507 of 2000 7.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.26507 of 2000 Date: 7th December, 2010 Between: A.Appa Rao, died per L.R. Adapaka Lakshmi .. Petitioner And Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi and others. .. Respondents