THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WP NO.13788 OF 2004 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed,J ) The writ petition is filed seeking to declare the order dated 10-11- 1997 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential order dated 16-61999 passed by the 1st respondent and also the order dated 25-2- 2003 passed in OA N.6985 of 1999 by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits etc. 2. The brief facts stated are:- the petitioner was originally appointed in the Police Department in the year 1969 and he has put in nearly 30 years of service in the department. It is stated that the petitioner fell sick in two spells once in the year 1995 from 8-4-1995 to 7-7-1995 (three months) and on another occasion from 21-2-1996 to 25-3-1996 (one month) on both the occasions on account of his ill-health. A charge memo dated 1-6-1996 was issued by the 2nd respondent and another charge memo dated 4-6-1996 was also issued by the 2nd respondent for the same charge of un-authorized absence. To both the charge memos, the petitioner stated to have submitted explanations with medical certificates to show that during the relevant period he fell sick. The enquiry officers who enquired charges after analyzing the records and also the medical certificates produced by the petitioner observed that the medical certificates were only procured for the purpose of covering up his unauthorized absence and under those circumstances held that the charges are ‘proved’, based on which the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed appeal to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent-appellate authority also concurring with the view of the primary authority dismissed the appeal, as against which the petitioner filed the present OA. The Tribunal by the impugned order while dismissing the OA confirmed the orders passed by the authorities. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Admittedly the petitioner rendered 30 years of services in the Police department. The only reason for dispensing with the services of the petitioner was that he unauthorizedly absented to his duties in two spells and nothing adverse is produced against the petitioner. It is not that the petitioner is involved in any charge of moral turpitude which warranted his dismissal from service. On equity, the reasons for his unauthorized absence is relevant for the purpose of coming to the conclusion with regard to the gravity of the charge and imposing of punishment. The petitioner’s absence though is established, it may not be construed as willful absence, unless it is otherwise proved. It is not the case that the petitioner was frequently absented to his duties. Under these circumstances, regard shall have to the service rendered by him and the nature of the charge and in this case, we are of the view that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge alleged and proved against the petitioner. 5. We are aware of our limitations that the scope of judicial review in matters of interference with imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is limited and this Court will not normally substitute its own conclusion on mattes of penalty. However, if the punishment imposed by the authority shocks the conscience of the Court, then the Court would appropriately mould the relief. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner has rendered 30 years of services and the charge relates to unauthorized absence in two spells for four months and the reason assigned was illness, we are of the view of the that the punished imposed on him is disproportionate and that the interests of justice would suffice if punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is imposed without back wages for the said period. However, this order shall not be treated as precedent as the punishment is modified only based on equity, since the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation from service. 7. With the above modification of punishment, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J _________________ K.G. Shankar, J Dated 20-6-2011 Nrg.