IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 4661 of 2004 Between: 1 The Superintendent of police, Mahabubnagar District. 2 Deputy Inspector General of Police., Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND D.Balaji, P.C.1181,P.K.Palli, P.S. & Mandal,,Mahaboobnagar Dist. .....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 issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "writ of Ceritiorari" calling for the records connected with order dated 11-11-2003 in O.A.No.3218 of 2000 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent: MR.G.RAVI MOHAN The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.4661 of 2004 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 11-11-2003 passed in O.A.No.3218 of 2000 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details necessary for deciding the writ petition are as follows: The respondent – applicant while working as Police Constable remained absent from duty during the period 01-2-1999 to 22-2-1999. The case of the applicant is that he was suffering from ailment and took treatment and that he had submitted medical certificate, which was not accepted on the ground that it was not issued by the specified Doctor. It is stated that the applicant had not reported to duty during the said period, therefore, he was declared as deserter and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After conducting the enquiry and giving opportunity to the applicant, the petitioners found the applicant guilty of the alleged misconduct and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service with effect from 18- 1-2000. The applicant challenged the punishment of dismissal from service by filing O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the proved misconduct remitted the matter to the authority to impose lesser penalty commensurate with the charge proved against the applicant. 3. Learned Government Pleader contended that the Tribunal ought not to have suggested to the disciplinary authority the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the alleged absence of 22 days was with prior permission and the medical certificate was not accepted and that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 4. We have considered the contentions advanced by both the counsel. In the instant case, the misconduct alleged and proved against the applicant is that he was unauthorisedly absent for 22 days as he was sick. Admittedly, the applicant had taken sick passport with effect from 01-2-1999 to take treatment and he had also produced medical certificate, which was not accepted. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated and enquiry was conducted, but the applicant did not avail the opportunity given to him, as was observed by the Tribunal in its order. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the disciplinary proceedings and recommend for a particular punishment. In the case on hand, the unauthorised absence was for 22 days and the punishment imposed was dismissal from service and in the circumstances, we are of the view that the punishment imposed is shocking the judicial conscience of the court and is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 5. Generally speaking, the Tribunal or this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute a particular punishment having found that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to that of the proved misconduct. But, in this case, since the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct proved and to give a quietus to the lis at this stage itself, as an exceptional case, we set aside the order of dismissal from service and direct the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service, but without any back wages and further to impose the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. However, the period of absence shall be treated as ‘on duty’. 6. With the above modification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 11-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}