JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

The instant writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/Union of India (respondents in the writ petition) assailing the order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge accepting WP(C) No.2799/2017 preferred by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and setting aside the order of his removal from service dated 15.01.2015 passed by the Commandant 36 Battalion, CRPF, Khonsa, i.e. respondent No.3 in the writ petition.

2. The respondent/writ petitioner was handed down the said punishment pursuant to an enquiry held on the charge of prolonged unauthorized absence from duty. While accepting the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, set aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 15.01.2015 and 18.02.2017 passed by the Appellate Authority and as a consequence, the employer (Union of India) was directed to reinstate the respondent/writ petitioner in service along with 50% of back wages.

3. At this stage, it would be fruitful to reproduce the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by this Court while entertaining the present appeal:-

“The respondent has entered caveat. Hence, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent.

Heard Mr. SC Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the appellants. Also heard Mr. BK Das, learned counsel for the respondent.

At the outset, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would disclose that the learned Single Judge has essentially arrived at the conclusion that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charge and in that light re-instatement has been granted with the benefit of 50% of the salary.

Since a consideration of the matter is required with regard to other aspects, the appeal is admitted.

In the meanwhile, there shall be an interim stay in so far as the grant of 50% backwages subject to the appellants re-instating the respondent into service within three weeks from this day.”

A perusal of the said order would indicate that the appeal was entertained primarily on the aspect of grant of 50% of back wages, which part of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was stayed.

4. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing the appellants candidly conceded that the respondent/writ petitioner has already been reinstated in service in compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the Division Bench, did not consider it proper to stay the same to this extent.

5. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury was candid enough in conceding that a view has been consistently taken by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions that award of penalty of dismissal from service on the charge of absence from duty would be disproportionate to the gravity of charge and thus, to this extent, his challenge to the impugned order of reinstatement was not too convincing. However, fervent submission of Mr. Choudhury was that the award of 50% back wages to the respondent/writ petitioner was totally uncalled for because the respondent had remained unauthorizedly absent from service for a period of nearly 414 days.

6. In support of his contentions, Mr. Choudhury placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. V. Venkatesan, reported in AIR 2010 (SC) 206; U.P. State Brassware Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Uday Narain Pandey, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 479; M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Smt. Jarina Bee, reported in AIR 2003 (SC) 2657; General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh, reported in AIR 2005 (SC) 3966 and J.K. Synthetics Limited Vs- K.P. Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 2 SCC 433.

7. Per contra, Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel representing the respondent/writ petitioner, supported the order rendered by the learned Single Judge and contended that the penalty of removal from service, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority against the respondent/writ petitioner, was clearly disproportionate to the gravamen of charge. The respondent/writ peti