IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21579 of 2008 Between: 1 The Senior DEN/South/SC, South Central Railways, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. 2 The Assistant Engineer, Madira, Khammam District, South Central Railways, Secunderabad Division. 3 The ADRM/T/SC & Revising Authority, South Central Railways, Secunderabad Division.Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Pullaiah Seetha Ramulu, S/o. Seetharamulu, O/o. Senior Section Engineer (P. Way), Madhira, South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records relating to the order passed in OA No. 581 of 2007 dt. 29-7-2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad Bench, in so far as remitting back the case to the revision authority as illegal, arbitrary and without power, and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the award of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.581 of 2007 dated 29-07-2008, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent was issued a charge memo dated 13-07-1999, wherein it was alleged that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from July, 1998 to June 1999 for a period of 365 days without sanction of leave from the competent authority. On 13-09-2000, the disciplinary authority passed ﬁnal orders imposing the punishment of removal from service and the said order was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority, in his order dated 13-09-2000. Against the said order, the respondent preferred an application in O.A.No.581 of 2007 before the Tribunal. In the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the petitioners stated that the respondent was a habitual absentee and he was unauthorizedly absent from 04-01- 1986 to 31-10-1986 for which a penalty of removal was imposed. On the representation from SCR Mazdoor Union, the petitioner was reinstated into service from 05- 12-1991, but, again he unauthorizedly absented from 13- 09-1994 to 30-09-1996 and from July 1998 to June 1999 also, for which, he was imposed the penalty of removal from service on 13-09-2000, which was conﬁrmed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority. In its order, the Tribunal noted that the respondent, due to ill-health, could not attend to duty and was undergoing treatment at Government M.N.J. Hospital, Hyderabad during the period 1998 to 2001. While taking into consideration the family condition of the respondent, who belongs to SC community, and the length of service put up by him and the reasons for his absence, the Tribunal observed that the punishment of removal from service would debar him from claiming the beneﬁts for the service rendered by him and held that punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct of his unauthorized absence and the punishment of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice. However, the Tribunal while conﬁrming the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer as regards the misconduct of unauthorized absence, set aside the order of removal and remitted the matter to the revisional authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Railways contended that the Tribunal ought not to have suggested the petitioners to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement and it is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority to decide as to what punishment is to be imposed with regard to the alleged misconduct. He further contends that it is in the employer’s realm to impose the punishment and the Tribunal is justiﬁed in interfering with only when the punishment imposed is one which shocks the conscience of this Court or is a punishment which could not have been imposed at all. We have perused the material available on record. In view of the long period of service rendered by the respondent and the ailment he was suﬀering from, the punishment of removal imposed by the disciplinary authority is grossly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. The suggestion of the Tribunal to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement was only to not to get the respondent deprived of the beneﬁts to which he is entitled to. We do not ﬁnd any justiﬁcation to interfere with the order of Tribunal. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order does not necessitate interference. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD ,J Dt:30-09-2008 usd