IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17026 OF 2011 BETWEEN: G. Lingaiah S/o. late Yellaiah …. Petitioner AND APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and another. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17026 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order of removal of the petitioner from service passed in proceedings No.P3/1(112)/2010-KLKY, dated 04-05-2011, as illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Driver in the 1st respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the year 1998 through due process of selection. On 01-08-2000 his services were regularized. On 04-05-2011, the 2nd respondent removed the petitioner from service on the ground that he was remained absent unauthorizedly from 18-12-2010 to 27-12-2010. As the petitioner suffered with severe joint knee pains and back pain, as such, he applied for leave on 18-12-2010 and on the impression that the leave was granted, he reported to duty on 27-12-2010. But, the 2nd respondent issued charge sheet on 27-12-2010 for the charge of unauthorized absenteeism. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the same. But, the 2nd respondent was not convinced with the explanation and appointed an Enquiry Officer, who inturn, conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for absence of the petitioner for a period of 9 days, removal of the petitioner from service is disproportionate to the proved misconduct and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contended that after conducting proper enquiry, the impugned order has been passed, that an appeal is provided against the order of the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority are empowered to impose punishment with regard to misconduct alleged against the petitioner. There cannot be any doubt that punishment must be in proportionate to the proved misconduct. 6. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority. But, at the same time, when the punishment shocks the conscience of the Court, then it would be a ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 7. In view of the fact that the period of absence is negligible i.e. misconduct proved is only absence of a period of 9 days, the impugned order can be set aside by reinstating the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service, with imposition of punishment of non- entitlement of any other monetary benefits. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with continuity of service. The petitioner is not entitled to any monetary benefits by virtue of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 07, 2011. KTL