Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—This intra Court appeal is directed against a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.2.2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the punishment of removal inflicted on him during the course of disciplinary proceedings has been set aside. He has been held entitled to reinstatement in service without backwages and the punishment of removal has been substituted with that of the withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.

2. The background facts are that the respondent while being posted as messenger in Branch Kevara, District Ballia of the Ballia Etawah Gramin Bank (now stands merged with Purvanchal Gramin Bank, Gorakhpur and has been re-designated by the name of the appellant) was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.10.2011 for alleged unauthorised absence from duty totaling 355 days during the year 2009, 2010 and 2011. The other charge was that inspite of registered notices to show-cause regarding unauthorised absence and to report on duty forthwith, the respondent failed to comply with the said direction. A regular disciplinary inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 23.7.2012, in which the respondent was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. He was issued a show-cause notice dated 4.9.2012 against the proposed punishment of removal from service. In response, the respondent gave his reply on 17.9.2012, in which he submitted that the absence was on account of reasons beyond his control, as he was ill during the said period. It was further stated that his absence be condoned and an opportunity be granted to him to serve the Bank. However, the disciplinary authority, finding no credible evidence to justify the absence of the respondent, by order dated 5.10.2012, inflicted the punishment envisaged under Regulation 39.2 (b) (v) of the Ballia Etawah Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 which stipulates removal from service but which does not disqualify for future employment. Aggrieved, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Chairman of the Bank, which was also dismissed on 11.1.2013. The respondent, thereafter, filed a revision on 1.2.2013 and during its pendency, the respondent filed the writ petition challenging the order of the disciplinary authority dated 5.10.2012 and the order of the appellate authority dated 11.1.2013.

3. Before the learned Single Judge it was conceded by the parties that the revision filed by the respondent was not maintainable and, therefore, the learned Single Judge proceeded to hear the petition on merits and allowed it by the impugned judgment dated 27.2.2015. The learned Single Judge held that the period of unauthorised absence until 1.10.2010 was the subject-matter of an earlier disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and for which, he was also punished by withholding annual increments for two years with cumulative effect. It was thus concluded that for the alleged misconduct which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings, the respondent had already been punished in the past. It was further held that absenteeism during the year 2009, 2010 and 2011 on which a charge of misconduct had been levelled against the respondent in the present proceedings, were all treated as leave without pay. It was thus concluded as under :

“From time to time the petitioner was absent but equally he had been punished either by stoppage of annual increments for two years with cumulative effect or had been sanctioned leave without pay. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the order impugned is disproportionate.”

4. The basic issue before this Court is whether the respondent had already been punished for the alleged absenteeism which now constitutes the main charge of misconduct against him and whether the same had been condoned by sanctionin