THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.2270 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Heard both sides. The Management of M/s. Indian Immunologicals filed this writ appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent, 1865 assailing the correctness of the order dated 12.08.2005 allowing W.P.No.36480 of 1998 which was filed by the respondent- employee, and set aside the order dated 14.12.1998 whereby she was dismissed from service. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent – employee was appointed on 01.10.1982 in appellant organization as telephone operator and was promoted as Junior Assistant Grade - I in the year 1987. On 01.11.1996, she was transferred to the purchase section from the accounts section and subsequently in March, 1997, she was further promoted as a Supervisor. While so, she was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was issued on 24.10.1997 on the allegation that on 03.09.1997, the available quoted rates of vitamin-C were revealed to one V. Kama Raju of M/s. M.S. Pharma and on the basis of such rates, the said Kama Raju has written his modified quotation and the same was accepted, thereby the appellant organization was put to loss, and thus violated the purchase procedure manual. After holding regular departmental enquiry, dismissal order was passed on 14.12.1998. Aggrieved thereby she filed the writ petition. After filing of the detailed counter affidavit by the appellant organization in the writ petition and contest, considering the various submissions, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition only to the extent of directing the appellant organization to consider the case of the respondent – employee once again and to impose any lesser punishment than that of dismissal, removal or reversion from the post of Supervisor by passing appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, nothing was found fault with the findings of guilty on the charges levelled against the employee. The grievance of the appellant organization is that having regard to the nature of charges made against the respondent – employee and the findings of the enquiry officer, this Court cannot go into the correctness of the punishment in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and further, there cannot be such specific mandatory directions in this regard. These contentions were sought to be refuted by the respondent – employee. Considered the rival submissions and the material on record. Ultimately, the question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the quantum of punishment as imposed on the respondent – employee is commensurate with the charges levelled against her. Shorn of all the details and other facts, since the charges levelled against the respondent – employee were proved, though as rightly held by the learned single Judge that dismissal from service is apparently on heavy side, necessarily it warrants some other punishment. In the circumstances, we clarify that the appellant organization can consider the case of the respondent - employee in a proper perspective and impose suitable punishment by passing appropriate orders without any fetters, but in accordance with law. With the above clarification, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) 10th August, 2010 _______________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) GHN