HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24150 OF 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in removing the petitioner from the service of the State Trading Corporation of India Limited vide proceedings dated 05-05-2005 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Legal Advisor in the State Trading Corporation of India Limited (for short “Trading Corporation”). At the relevant time, he was working as a Marketing Manager. On 09-02-2004, he was issued with a charge sheet alleging that he committed a misconduct of submitting fabricated medical bills for the purpose of reimbursement during the year 2001- 02. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 28-02-2004 denying the charges. The disciplinary authority – respondent No.1 having not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charge. The enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry, submitted his report dated 21-02-2005 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the report submitted by the enquiry officer and on his examination, appears to have issued the order of removal of the petitioner from service, dated 05-05-2005, after completing all the formalities. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority – respondent No.2 stating that when he was working as Deputy Legal Officer at Gandhidhan, his mother had a cardiac problem during December, 1995 and since he was not in a position to attend on her, his brothers, who were staying at Hyderabad, took her to Gandhi Hospital and provided necessary treatment. As he was away from the Station, his brothers were looking after their mother and were sending prescriptions and cash memos to him for the purpose of reimbursement. He had never met any Doctor at any point of time. His two brothers, who furnished the medical prescriptions, bills and cash memos were also passed away subsequently. However, the appeal was dismissed by an order dated 25-06-2005. Therefore, the present writ petition. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, enquiry was not properly conducted and even the charge was as vague as it could be apart from being trivial and assuming that the charge was proved against the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and stated that no ground is made out calling interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. 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 available on record. 6. This is a case where a Law Officer of the Trading Corporation had submitted fabricated bills of the treatment of his mother for the purpose of reimbursement. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that he was not aware of those bills and even he has not seen the Doctors, who have treated his mother. Since he was away, his mother was being attended to by his brothers. Whatever the medical prescriptions and bills obtained by his brothers and sent to him were submitted by him for the purpose of reimbursement. The Mother of the petitioner and his brothers passed away in the meanwhile. So, there was no scope for him to prove or disprove the charge. Under those circumstances, enquiry conducted by the respondent authorities is either arbitrary or illegal or the order passed by the management holding the petitioner guilty of the charge is perverse. But, since no past misconduct has been attributed to the petitioner, it can definitely be said that punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to that of misconduct. However, learned counsel for the respondents stated that he being a Law Officer cannot absolve himself from the liability and guilty of the charge. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the order of removal is modified to that of compulsory retirement as on the date of passing of the impugned order. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the impugned order of removal from service as confirmed by the appellate authority is modified to that of compulsory retirement as on the date of impugned order, as a measure of punishment. The respondents shall settle all the benefits, whatever, payable to the petitioner as per his eligibility under the rules within a period of four (4) weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ July 16, 2010. C.V. RAMULU, J PV