IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.13829 of 2000 Between: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, HM & FW Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ….PETITIONERS and 1. Dr.(Smt) k. Madhura aVani and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.13829 of 2000 ORDER:( Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR) In this writ petition, the petitioner State is aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1036 of 1993 dated 23.02.2000 wherein the Tribunal had interfered with the impugned order of removal passed by the Government against the 1st respondent herein. 2. The brief facts so far as relevant are that the 1st respondent herein was working as Assistant Professor in Government Maternity Hospital, Hyderabad. On the allegation that she unauthorizedly absented herself from the duty from 10.09.1996, three charges were framed against her and disciplinary enquiry was conducted. The charges framed read as follows. “Charge-I : that she while working as Assistant Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology in Government Maternity Hospital, Hyderabad absented herself from duty w.e.f. 10-9-96 and thus rendered herself liable for disciplinary action. Charge-II : that after expiry of leave applied for by her, she has failed to rejoin duty and thus deserted the job. Charge-III : that due to her sudden and abrupt absence, medicare and teaching has been affected in Government Maternity Hospital/Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad.” The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against 1st respondent are proved. The Government gave a notice to the 1st respondent intimating her the provisional decision to remove her from service. After considering the explanation, the Government passed the final orders of removal in G.O.Ms.No.143 HM&FW dated 24.03.1992 imposing the punishment of removal on the 1st respondent. The said order was questioned in the aforesaid O.A. by the 1st respondent. 3. During hearing of O.A., the Tribunal, on the basis of the record placed before it, came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer’s report was not furnished to the 1st respondent and consequently the Tribunal came to hold that by non-furnishing of the Enquiry Officer’s report to the 1st respondent, though the respondent had not made any such request, principles of natural justice and fairness are breached and, accordingly, the Tribunal was of the view that the order of removal passed against the 1st respondent was not sustainable. Under the impugned order, the Tribunal remitted the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of the Enquiry Officer’s report onwards. However, while passing the said order of remand, the Tribunal further proceeded to interfere with the punishment imposed under the impugned G.O. on the ground that it is disproportionate and gave further directions that the 1st respondent may be imposed a punishment other than dismissal, compulsory retirement or removal from service. The Tribunal further directed that the period from the date of unauthorized absence till the date of imposition of punishment will be treated as leave without pay and the 1st respondent herein will be eligible only for notional benefits and will not be eligible for payment of arrears. With the aforesaid directions, the O.A. was disposed of. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 4. We have heard both the learned counsel. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal’s finding that the Enquiry Officer’s report ought to have been furnished to the 1st respondent is not justified in view of the fact that the 1st respondent herself has never sought for the said document. Alternatively, the learned Government Pleader further submits that even assuming that the Tribunal was of the view that the Enquiry Officer’s report has to be furnished to the 1st respondent and, for that purpose, was inclined to remit the disciplinary proceedings from that stage onwards, the further directions given by the Tribunal whereby the nature of punishment to be imposed is specified and even further directions as to how the unauthorized absence of the 1st respondent is to be treated is also determined by the Tribunal. The learned Government Pleader, therefore, contends that the impugned order of the Tribunal hardly leaves any exercise to be conducted by the Government on remand and the said order impugned herein is wholly unsustainable in view of the fact that if at all the Tribunal was dissatisfied with the procedural fairness being followed; it could have; at the most remitted the matter. 6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the order of the Tribunal. It is true that the 1st respondent had not requested for supply of the Enquiry Officer’s report. However, the Tribunal has felt that non-furnishing of the said report before passing the order of removal would amount to denying a reasonable opportunity to the 1st respondent. We would, therefore, not like to interfere with that part of the order impugned and satisfaction already reached by the Tribunal. However, to the extent of further submissions of the learned Government Pleader we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has far exceeded in its jurisdiction in determining the nature of punishment to be imposed on the 1st respondent and giving directions in that regard in the impugned order itself. Firstly, since the Tribunal felt that the principles of fair play and natural justice are violated; it has set aside the impugned order of removal and directed the disciplinary proceedings to be remitted from the stage of Enquiry Officer’s report onwards. No further direction thereafter was warranted and it should have been entirely left for the Government i.e. for the petitioners herein, to consider the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The impugned directions given by the Tribunal whereby the nature of punishment is suggested to be other than either dismissal, compulsory retirement or removal from service is wholly unwarranted. Similarly, the further direction of the Tribunal as to how the unauthorized absence is to be treated is also unwarranted. All the said aspects fell with the realm of the powers of the disciplinary authority and it is not for the Tribunal to substitute its views for those of the disciplinary authority. We, therefore, modify the order of the Tribunal impugned herein and pass the following order. (1) The impugned G.O.Ms.No.143, HM & FW dated 24.03.1992 directing the removal of the 1st respondent from service shall stand set aside as held by the Tribunal. (2) The disciplinary proceedings shall stand remitted to the disciplinary authority from the stage of Enquiry Officer’s report onwards and the disciplinary authority shall supply a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report to the 1st respondent giving her an opportunity to submit her explanation against the findings. (3) In the event of the 1st respondent submitting her explanation within the time prescribed as above, the disciplinary authority shall consider the totality of the facts and circumstances and pass appropriate orders in the said disciplinary proceedings. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed-in-part modifying the order of the Tribunal as above. No costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 24th September 2009 CVRK