THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26642 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in reinstating the 1st petitioner into service afresh without granting other benefits like continuity of service, backwages etc. Petitioner No.1 is the workman and the respondents are the management. It appears, initially the workman was appointed as a cleaner in the respondent Corporation with effect from 18.12.1976. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Helper on 16.06.1978 and further promoted as a Mechanic Grade-II on 28.10.1978. While so, when he was working as a Mechanic Grade-II in Madanapalle II Depot, he was absented to duties from 18.05.1998 to 28.08.1998 and, therefore, a charge sheet was issued to him on 06.07.1998 enumerating the following charges: “For having absented yourself for your duties from 18-5-98 to till date without obtaining leave or prior permission from the competent authority, which amounts to un-authorised absence to duties and later submitted sick certificate after a lapse of 05 days to coverup the absenteeism, causing much dislocation of maintenance of vehicles in the garage, which leads to late supply of vehicles for operation of discussed above in the allegation, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs.1963. For having habituated for un-authorised absence for duties and irregular for duties as detailed in the allegation, since absented for duty for 41 days and availed leave for 71 days including all leaves from 1-1- 97 to 16-6-98, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28 (xxvii) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regs.1963.” Thereupon, the workman submitted his explanation to the charge sheet, however, having not satisfied with the explanation offered by him, a detailed enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held the workman guilty of the charges framed against him and the disciplinary authority, after considering the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and completing the formalities, issued proceedings dated 29.06.1999 imposing the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved thereby, the workman carried the matter in appeal before the Regional Manager, Thirupathi, who, after considering the service record of the workman and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, directed for reinstatement of the workman afresh, but however denied all other benefits. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the 1st petitioner-workman strenuously contended that neither the sick certificate submitted by the workman for his absence to duties was properly considered nor the request of the workman for voluntary retirement from service was considered, and on the other hand, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for the absenteeism from 18.05.1998 to 28.08.1998. He further submits that the workman had put in 23 years of clean service in the Corporation and even the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not find any remarks against the workman in the long service rendered by him in the Corporation. Though the workman submitted his explanation stating that due to ill-health, he was bed ridden from 18.05.1998 and as such he submitted his sick certificate through post, the same was not properly considered. Apart from submitting the sick certificate, the workman had also pleaded that his son was suffering from heart ailment and therefore he sought for voluntary retirement. Even assuming that there is some misconduct on the part of the workman, the punishment of removal from service or the modification of the punishment by the appellate authority granting reinstatement afresh denying all other benefits is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct and arbitrary and illegal. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the workman being a Mechanic was the responsible person for maintenance of buses in the depot and he was not supposed to be absented to duties for such a long time without any reasonable cause and, therefore, the punishment of removal from service imposed by the Depot Manager is justified, however, the appellate authority took a lenient view of the matter in view of clean service of the workman and ordered reinstatement afresh and the workman does not deserve the benefits as prayed by him. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. Perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Neither the order passed by the disciplinary authority nor the order passed by the appellate authority indicate that the past service of the workman was bad. In fact, the appellate authority recorded its findings stating that the petitioner had put in 23 years of long service in the Corporation and he was absented to duties for the first time, for which he was imposed the punishment of removal from service. Further, it is interesting to notice that a finding was recorded that the workman absented to duties from 18.05.1998 without prior permission from the competent authority and later on he submitted his sick certificate after lapse of five days to cover up the absenteeism, but that was not accepted. Further, the workman pleaded for voluntary retirement in view of health condition of his son and that was also not accepted by the authorities. In these circumstances, it can be said that the appellate authority has rightly set aside the punishment of removal from service, which is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. But however, in view of the fact that the workman had put in clean service of 23 years, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate authority should not have denied all other benefits while ordering reinstatement of the workman into service. Generally speaking, in a case of this nature, if the punishment is disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, then the same is liable to be set aside remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration, but since the writ petition relates to the year 2000 and that the workman expired during pendency of the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to give a quietus to this litigation at this stage itself, and dispose of the writ petition as under: “The respondent management is directed to treat that the workman was reinstated into service with continuity of service and all other benefits, except backwages from 18.05.1998 till the date of reinstatement. The respondents are accordingly directed to calculate all the terminal benefits and pay the same to the legal representatives of the workman within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 10.12.2010 v v