THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13756 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring action of the first respondent in not examining and deciding the Memo filed by the petitoner on 12.3.2005 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 besides being contrary to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1989(1) SLR 7 and consequently set aside the dismissal order dated 24.2.2004 passed by second respondent as confirmed vide order dated 25.6.2004 by the third respondent. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant in the Respondent Insurance Company. He was subsequently promoted as Senior Assistant and further promoted as Administrative Officer after passing departmental tests and was further promoted as Branch manager. While that being so, he was issued with a charge sheet dated 13.11.2002 stating that the premium deposited under the cover notes were not being deposited to the account of the company with some other charges. Insofar as other charges are concerned, the same were not proved. But insofar as charge that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.8,817/- was concerned, the same was proved in the enquiry and the disciplinary authority passed dismissal order dated 24.2.2004 accepting the report of the enquiry officer. Being aggrieved by the said dismissal order, petitioner filed appeal, which also ended in dismissal. Hence this writ petition. Though several arguments were advanced on either side, the sum and substance of the charge is that the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.8,817/-which he collected towards the cover note of the policy. Admittedly, petitioner had put in 27 years of unblemished record of service as on the date of dismissal from service. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in a case of this nature, when the petitioner had put in 27 years of unblemished record of service, dismissal from service is unwarranted and is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged and on this ground alone, the dismissal order dated 24.2.2004 is liable to be set aside. The petitioner should have imposed with a lesser punishment. Generally speaking, in a case of this nature, the matter should be remitted to the disciplinary authority for appropriate punishment. But, it is more than (7) years now since the petitioner was dismissed, therefore, I deem it fit to give a quietus to the litigation here itself. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the dismissal order dated 24.2.2004 is modified to be treated read as ‘compulsory retirement’ from service as per Rule 23(e) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975. The respondents shall treat the petitioner as he if had retired from service ‘compulsorily’ and settle all the benefits, as per his entitlement, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 24.1.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13756 of 2005 24.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.13756 of 2005 Date: 24th January, 2011 Between: V.Narasimha Rao .. Petitioner And The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New India Assurance Company Ltd., 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai and others. .. Respondents