IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1373 OF 2003 Union of India trough Divisional Railway Manager,C.Rly ..Petitioners V/s Mr.Pandit Narayan Donde .. Respondent Mr.T.J.Pandian for Petitioner Mr.D.V.Gangal for Respondent CORAM:BILAL NAZKI, AND A.P.BHANGALE,JJ DATE: APRIL 25, 2008 P.C.:- 1. The Respondent admittedly remained absent from duty for 548 days. He accepted the charges at the time of reply to the charges framed against him in Departmental Enquiry and also accepted them during enquiry and also at the appellate stage. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the absence from duty of the Petitioner. After Departmental Enquiry, he was removed from service and then he filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "CAT"). The CAT also agreed that misconduct has been proved against the Respondent herein but has interfered as regards the punishment imposed on him and found that the punishment was disproportionate. The Tribunal quashed and set aside the punishment of removal from service imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority and remanded back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsidering the question of imposing punishment on the Respondent except that of removal or dismissal from service. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that they are aggrieved by the order on the ground that when the Tribunal has accepted that there has been no violation of the rules in conducting enquiry and charge of misconduct has been proved against the Respondent before the Tribunal and punishment was just and adequate as absence from duty for a long period was gross misconduct, therefore, the Tribunal should not have at all interfered in the matter. In this connection he relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submitted that it is settled law that no interference is necessary in the matter when the charge was proved against the delinquent. He also submits that the Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion that punishment was disproportionate and while remanding back the matter the Tribunal directing the lower authority to impose the punishment on the Respondent except that of removal or dismissal from service. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has drawn our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in case of Om Kumar and Ors v/s Union of India reported in 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039, in support of his contention. In the present case, the Tribunal after setting aside the punishment remanded back the matter, but while doing so it imposed restrictions on the disciplinary authority with regard to quantum of punishment. That means the Petitioner would not be able to give major punishment to the Respondent but would be bound to give minor punishment. 4. In the recent judgment in the case of M/s L & T Komatsu Ltd. v/s N.Udayakumar, reported in 2007(8) SCC 303, the absence of 105 days were held by the Supreme Court to be gross misconduct and gross violation of discipline and punishment of dismissal was justified. 5. In this view of the matter we modify the order of the Tribunal to the extent it imposed restrictions in relation to quantum of punishment. 6. Writ petition is disposed of. ( BILAL NAZKI,J ) ( A.P.BHANGALE,J )