JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority of the respondent Corporation, vide which the Appellate Authority i.e. Managing Director, H.R.T.C. had affirmed the order of the disciplinary authority of removal from service, as against the petitioner, vide order dated 17.11.1997. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Washer Boy and he was charge-sheeted for absence from duties. The disciplinary authority proceeded against the petitioner and imposed the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner on 17.11.1997. He preferred an appeal before the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, which was rejected by him on 23.4.1998. He challenged the said order before this Court, which passed the following order on 23.4.2010:- “Consequently, the petition is allowed. Annexure A7, dated 23rd April, 1998 is quashed and set aside. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh within a period of six weeks from today by a speaking order. While dealing with the matter, the appellate authority shall take into consideration that the petitioner belongs to a lower strata of the society and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, prima facie, is disproportionate to the alleged mis-conduct. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.” 3. Thereafter, the matter was again considered by the Appellate Authority and vide its order Annexure P-10, the following order was passed by the Appellate Authority:- “Now therefore, undersigned after having gone through the facts of the case carefully comes to the conclusion that undoubtedly he belongs to lower strata of society and the penalty imposed on him appears to be excessive, however, he is almost 48 years of age and may not be fit to discharge the duties of Washer-boy if re-engaged and also he has been given due opportunity of representation before imposing of penalty by way of Show Cause Notice and reminders delivered at his home address and received by him. His appeal is therefore considered and rejected.” 4. It is clear from a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority that the appellant belongs to lower strata of society and the penalty imposed on him appears to be excessive. His appeal is therefore considered and rejected.” 4. It is clear from a perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority that the appellant belongs to lower strata of society and the penalty imposed on him appears to be excessive. Once the penalty appears to be excessive, as observed by the Appellate Authority, that is, Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, some lesser punishment should have been awarded upon him. However, by way of giving the said findings, the Appellate Authority proceeded to hold that since the petitioner is of the age of 48 years and may not be fit to discharge the duties of Washer Boy, if reengaged. The order passed does not make any sense, when once the Appellate Authority has observed that the penalty was excessive, some lesser punishment should have been awarded to the appellant/ petitioner. However, he is not being granted the relief of setting aside the order of removal from service by simple observation that since the appellant/petitioner is of the age of 48 years, he may not be able to discharge the duties of Washer Boy. The law permits him to remain in service till the age of 60 years. In that case, the petitioner should have been charge-sheeted and then proceeded against and an inquiry should have been held and thereafter, such an order could have been passed by the Appellate Authority. However, there is no material to proceed against the petitioner with the authority to hold that he is unfit and, therefore, they shall not proceed against him in that regard now. 5. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is set aside. It is not for this Court as to what penalty should be imposed upon the petitioner. The matter shall go back to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, who shall consider the facts and thereafter, shall pass appropriate penalty upon the petitioner as permitted by law. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be re-engaged and all service benefits due to him shall be paid to him and the penalty shall be re-imposed upon him by the Appellate Authority, as discussed above. 6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be re-engaged and all service benefits due to him shall be paid to him and the penalty shall be re-imposed upon him by the Appellate Authority, as discussed above. The orders qua rejoining of service, shall be issued to the petitioner on the production of a certified copy of the order passed today by this Court. 7. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.