Judgment The petitioner’s husband, a workman in the respondent Corporation, died in harness. When the petitioner, being the wife and Class-I heir of the deceased workman, approached the authorities of the Corporation to receive the terminal benefits due to her husband, she came to know that certain Disciplinary Proceedings had remained pending against her husband when he was alive. Her further enquiries in this regard have revealed that on 17.02.008 the petitioner’s husband was charge sheeted for the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence in two spells. In fact, the said workman was said to have been absent from 03.11.2008 to 07.11.2008 (five days) and from 26.11.2008 to 29.11.2008 (four days), totalling to nine days. Treating the absence of the workman in two spells, though separated by more than one year, and not cumulatively exceeding 10 days, the respondent Corporation chose to proceed against the said workman in the domestic inquiry. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the workman, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service through Orders dated 08.06.2009. Though statutorily the workman had 60 days’ time to prefer an appeal, he unfortunately died soon thereafter within a month. As the petitioner’s husband died on 13.07.009, on obtaining the information about the said disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the authority concerned on 10.08.009. When no response was forth coming, having made further enquiries, the petitioner submitted another appeal in a proper format on 8.01.2010. Admittedly, the said appeal has not been disposed of to this day. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought for a composite relief of setting aside the order of removal on 18.06.2009 passed against her husband by the disciplinary authority and also for providing her employment on compassionate grounds. So long as the order of removal stands, the question of considering her case for compassionate appointment, however, does not arise. In other words, a removed employee cannot be treated to have died in harness. In any event, once duly constituted appeal is pending before the competent authority, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the said authority and pass orders on merits concerning the subject matter of the said appeal. Thus, it is appropriate for the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appellate authority before ventilating any further grievance in that regard. In any event, once duly constituted appeal is pending before the competent authority, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the said authority and pass orders on merits concerning the subject matter of the said appeal. Thus, it is appropriate for the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appellate authority before ventilating any further grievance in that regard. Though I am inclined to straight away dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits at the earliest, I am rather constrained to make an observation before giving the said direction. Removal from service is the harshest punishment to be imposed in case of major misconduct. Unfortunately, the Corporation has been displaying – I may state without my sounding pejorative - a cavalier tendency to pass orders of removal invariably in almost all cases of Disciplinary Proceedings, this case being an ample illustration of the said tendency, if not malady. The workman is said to have absented himself from duty for five days in 2008. At that time, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Later, one year thereafter, he was absent for four days. At that time, the Corporation decided to proceed against the petitioner by taking into account his absence one year prior thereto. It seems that the delinquent workman has provided explanation that he had been suffering from piles and had been operated upon. Despite the said plea, the Disciplinary Authority, in its wisdom, has decided to impose one of the harshest punishments possible, that of removal from service. I cannot help observing that invocation of this potent weapon of removal from service by the Corporation too often, à la tilting at windmills, has actually blunted its edges to the extent of derision. Apart from that, the calamitous consequences visiting upon the workmen in the face of removal from service for flippant reasons go to the extent of vitiating the industrial atmosphere in the Corporation. I earnestly hope that the Corporation would be more discerning and circumspect in exercising, undoubtedly plenary though, the powers of discipline in terms of regulations of the Corporation. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits within a period of two (02) months and pass appropriate orders thereof. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits within a period of two (02) months and pass appropriate orders thereof. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.