HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.6960 of 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated 16-2-2005 passed in O.A.No.3815 of 2004 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the applicant in the above O.A. While he was working in BC Welfare Department, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had conducted an enquiry against him into the allegations of possession of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income and bigamy. On the basis of ACB’s report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued and after considering his explanation, ultimately he was dismissed from service vide G.O.Rt.No.31 B.C. Welfare Department dated 26-6-2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, dismissed O.A. Hence, this writ petition by the applicant. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had put in 31 years of unblemished service and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2007. The alleged misconduct is the first one. The penalty was imposed without enquiring into the charge of bigamy by a competent authority. The department cannot decide as to the charge of bigamy. Insofar as possessing a house, there is no necessity of permission being obtained from the employer. Mere intimation to the employer is sufficient. Therefore the very charge framed against the petitioner is vague and trivial in nature. 5. Learned Government Pleader contended that under APCS (CC & A) Rules, the offence of bigamy by an employee amounts to misconduct and disciplinary proceedings can be initiated. He also contended that when the charges are proved in a regular departmental enquiry, it is for the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment and that the petitioner has not obtained permission under Rules before acquiring the house or land in the name of his family members. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and also perused the charges. The first charge against the petitioner relates to bigamy and the second charge pertains to disproportionate assets to the known sources of income. Further, the petitioner is alleged to have not obtained permission before acquiring the house and land on his name and in the name of his family members. In the instant case, there was no complaint by the first wife against the petitioner alleging bigamy and in the absence of his guilt by a competent court, the authority is not competent to determine whether he had committed the offence of bigamy. The petitioner has not given intimation to the employer before acquiring the house or land in his name or in the name of his family members and is in possession of the assets disproportionate to the known source of his income, which was held as proved. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Having regard to the length of service and the proved charges, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges. 7. It is settled law that the scope of judicial review is limited and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute a particular punishment having found that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to that of the proved misconduct. But, in the circumstances and as the petitioner retired from service and the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved, instead of remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority, we deem it just and proper to set aside the order imposing the penalty of dismissal from service and convert it into one of ‘compulsory retirement from service’. The petitioner shall be entitled to pensionary and all other benefits such as gratuity etc., as per Rules. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed in O.A.No.3815 of 2004 dated 16.2.2005 is set aside. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 19-06-2008 bsc