JUDGMENT : K. Venkataswami, J. In spite of notice, the respondent has chosen not to appear either in person or through a counsel. 2. We have come across a strange order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in this appeal. 3. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the disciplinary authority that the respondent was guilty of misconduct for which he was charged. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the respondent being 26 years of age, if the order of dismissal as passed by the disciplinary authority is upheld, he may not have a chance to re-enter the Government service. Accordingly, the Tribunal has converted the order of dismissal into one of removal from service and to this extent, there is no grievance on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal further directing the appellants to re-employ the respondent, stated as follows: "Taking into account all the circumstances, we would direct that the penalty may be converted into one of removal from service which does not bar the re-employment in the Government and we direct that he may be re-employed." 4. The direction that the respondent may be re-employed is totally without application of mind on the part of the Tribunal. The Tribunal having found that the respondent is liable to be removed from service for the proved misconduct has no jurisdiction to direct re-employment. 5. Accordingly, we set aside the direction of the Tribunal to re-employ the respondent. To this extent, this appeal is allowed. In other words, the order of removal stands. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.