ORDER : Harinath.N, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner challenged the order of removal from service, dated 18.12.2002. The petitioner approached the appellate authority and revision authority in vain. Aggrieved by the imposition of punishment of removal from service, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The petitioner was charged with the following charges: “1.For late turn up for duty by 35 minutes in the shift of 14.00 to 22.00 hrs of 21.06.2002. 2. For her desertion of duty point i.e. sentry duty at about 15.30 hrs during her duty hours of 14.00 hrs to 22.00 hrs of 21.06.2002. The same was found by IPF/RYP at about 15.30 hrs of 21.06.2002. 3. For her insubordinate behavior over her controlling authority i.e. IPF/RYP when the latter was enquiring W.con472 at about 15.45 hrs of 21.06.2002 in regard to her desertion of duty point at about 15.30 hrs of 21.06.2002. 4. For her trespass to the yard of RYP workshop at about 23.30 hrs of 5.7.2002 and remained in yard premises itself till 06.00 hrs of 06.7.2002 for the reasons best known to her only. 5. For abusing and manhandling con616, who was on duty at scrap yard, at about 23.30hrs of 5.7.2002 without provocation from other side. 6. For her failure to report for duty when she was detailed to perform duty in the shift of 14.00 to 22.00hrs of 19.7.2002 and remained absent for duty unauthorisedly till 20.7.2002. 7. Even though she was punished with 10 various punishments besides repeated counseling by her superiors for her various indisciplined acts such as unauthorized absence for duty, desertion of duty points, abusive behavior over SIPF, H.con on 26.5.2000, instead of reforming herself she is continuing the same attitude of her misbehavior towards her colleagues controlling authority and also failure to pay devotion to her duty”. 4. The enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service and the absence on 21.06.2002 and from 19.07.2002 to 20.07.2002 three days in all is to be treated as leave without pay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment of removal from service is not only harsh but also disproportionate to the charges framed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment of removal from service is not only harsh but also disproportionate to the charges framed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner ought to have been imposed with a punishment which is commensurate to the charges and prays for setting aside the order of disciplinary authority. 5. The learned Central Government counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been habitual in absenting and that in her service from the year, 1989 till the year, 2002 she was imposed various minor punishments she was also repeatedly counseled by her senior officers for mending her way and living up to the standards of a uniform disciplined force of the respondents. However, the attitude of the petitioner did not change. As such, there was no other option than to impose the punishments which the petitioner deserved. 6. Considering the charges framed against the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner reported her duty late by 35 minutes on 21.06.2002. The petitioner was to be report to the duty at 2.00 P.M., however, she reported to her duty 35 minutes late. On this allegation, charges 2 and 3 are framed. With respect to charge No.4 that the petitioner was found at RYP workshop at about 23.30 hrs on 5.7.2002 and stayed till 06.00 hours on 06.07.2002 is concerned, it is not before this Court what was her duty and who informed the respondent that the petitioner remaining in yard of RYP workshop on 5.7.2002. 7. With respect to charge 7 is concerned, the charge relates to minor punishments. As seen from the charges, the petitioner is guilty of absenting herself from her duty for three days in all and reporting to duty 35 minutes late on 21.06.2002. The enquiry conducted by the respondents would also indicate that the enquiry was conducted as to why she reported late to duty on that particular day. That apart, it is evident that, the statement of P.W.10 was not relied upon for the reasons best known to the Enquiry Officer. 8. The nature of charges and the severity of the punishment imposed on the petitioner is evidently shocking and the respondent No.3 ought to have had a better humane approach in handling the issue. 9. That apart, it is evident that, the statement of P.W.10 was not relied upon for the reasons best known to the Enquiry Officer. 8. The nature of charges and the severity of the punishment imposed on the petitioner is evidently shocking and the respondent No.3 ought to have had a better humane approach in handling the issue. 9. The termination of petitioner from service in reporting late to duty by 35 minutes has to be held as shockingly disproportionate punishment. This Court, having found the punishment imposed on the petitioner as shockingly disproportionate, it would have been an appropriate situation if the order directing the concerned respondent to relook at the issue and impose the punishment, proportionate to charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner was aged 33 years when she was imposed the punishment of removal from service. By now, the petitioner must have crossed the age of 56 years. This Court finds no justifiable reason to relegate the matter back to the concerned respondent to have a relook at the issue after a lapse of more than 21 years. This Court is also conscious of the limited scope for judicial review in matters relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against employees and the punishments imposed by such authorities after an enquiry. That proposition cannot be a straight jacket formula for all cases of disciplinary proceedings. The High Courts, while exercising the writs jurisdiction, can certainly interfere if the punishment imposed on the employee is shockingly disproportionate when compared to the charges framed. This case is a classic case where the petitioner was imposed the punishment of removal from service for having reported 35 minutes late to duty. This case is a glaring example of the arbitrary act on the part of the respondents in imposing the harshest punishment possible. 10. Considering the present facts in the present case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the punishment imposed and challenged in the present writ petition is shockingly disproportionate and deserves to be set aside. Relegating the matter back to the concerned authority for fresh consideration after the lapse of 22 years would certainly extend the ordeal of the petitioner and her fight for justice. In these peculiar circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and the period she was not on duty shall be treated as dies-non. In these peculiar circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and the period she was not on duty shall be treated as dies-non. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages. With the above directions, this writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.