Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.C. Ramalingam, learned counsel appearing for respondent 1 to 3. 2. The petitioner entered into service under respondents 1 to 3 as Peon on 211. 1981. At the time of selection, he had given a certificate as if he had passed IX standard. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated as there was some suspicion departmental proceeding was initiated as there was some suspicion regarding the certificate. At that stage, the petitioner submitted as fresh certificate to the effect that he had passed X standard and offered explanation that since the original certificate for having passed X standard was not available at the time of his joining, as the same had been given such certificate showing that he passed IX standard. It was further stated that the petitioner had to derived any particular advantage by furnishing wrong certificate. The department however thought it fit to dismiss the petitioner from service on the ground that he had given a false certificate. The petitioner challenged such order of dismissal by filing O.A. No.19 of 2004, after unsuccessfully exhausting the departmental remedy by way of appeal and revision. The Tribunal also confirmed the order of removal on the footing that the departmental enquiry had been conducted in accordance with law and on principles of natural justice and there was nothing to interfere with the order passed by the departmental authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing such order of dismissal and focusing our attention to that question of disproportionality of punishment, has submitted that the present petitioner had not derived any particular advantage by giving wrong certificate and such certificate had been given on the basis of bona fide advice given by the uncle of the petitioner as the original certificate showing the fact that the petitioner as the original certificate and showing the fact that the petitioner had passed had passed X standard was not immediately available. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement for the post was a pass in VIII standard and there was no instruction or rule disentitling anybody having passed x standard for the post. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of removal from service i.e., from a lowly post such as Peon is grossly disproportionate. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of removal from service i.e., from a lowly post such as Peon is grossly disproportionate. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that since the petitioner had produced a false certificate and the delinquency was proved in properly conducted departmental proceedings, there is no scope to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties at length and having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the punishment of removal from services, which has the effect of depriving the petitioner of his means of livelihood, is grossly disproportionate. We venture to so observe so, keeping in view the nature of the post and the status of the petitioner. We also feel that since the petitioner had not derived any particular advantage by producing the false certificate, the explanation of the petitioner that it was produced under a bone fide mistaken advice as the original certificate was not immediately available, is acceptable. In this circumstance, we feel that instead of removing the petitioner from service, some lesser punishment can be imposed. 6. We are conscious of the position of law that ordinarily the discretion of the departmental authorities relating to imposition of punishment should not be interfered with by the court of law unless such punishment is grossly disproportionate. We are also conscious of the position that ordinarily while interfering in such matter, the matter is required to be remanded to the departmental authority for imposing any adequate punishment. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, particularly when we find that the order of removal had been passed in the year 1999, in order to avoid any further delay, we feel it would be more appropriate to finalise the matter in this Court. 7. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of removal from service, we direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. Obviously, he shall not be entitled to any back wages nor such period shall be counted for the purpose of notional increments. However, such period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity in service including for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Obviously, he shall not be entitled to any back wages nor such period shall be counted for the purpose of notional increments. However, such period shall be counted for the purpose of continuity in service including for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This order shall be implemented by respondents 1 to 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner to the respondents. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed.