ORDER : (Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.) This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2008 passed in OA.No.2039 of 2004 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the said OA was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Originally, this Writ Petition was filed by the delinquent employee-Sripathi Tarigopula/petitioner No.1 and during the pendency of the Writ Petition, he died and as such, his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 4. Brief factual matrix of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, is that petitioner No.1 was appointed as District Probation Officer Grade-II in the month of January, 1975 and was promoted as District Probation Officer Grade-I in the year 1981 and further promoted as Superintendent/Regional Inspector of Probation on 16.08.1994; that while working as such, from 17.08.1994 to 04.10.1999, on a complaint that he has deliberately committed acts of gender discrimination and sexual harassment on subordinate female employees against the spirit of providing basic human rights of protection from sexual harassment and right to work with dignity to the women employees in work place, enquiry proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension, vide GO.Rt.No.391, dated 01.10.1999. 4.1. Challenging the said GO., petitioner No.1 filed OA.No.5943 of 1999 before the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2002 directing the respondents to dispose of the charges framed against petitioner No.1 within two months from the date of receipt of the said order and in case, no charges are framed, petitioner No.1 shall be reinstated into service forthwith. 4.2. Thereafter, in the process of enquiry, the Deputy Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, issued summons to petitioner No.1, which were returned as unclaimed and as such, summons were got published in two leading newspapers, viz., Deccan Chronicle and Vaartha on 03.12.2002 and 04.12.2002 respectively, informing him to attend the enquiry and defend himself; that even after the said publication, petitioner No.1 did not appear and participate in the enquiry and hence, the Enquiry Officer proceeded with enquiry on 17.12.2002, 18.12.2002 and 08.01.2003 and submitted his report dated 15.02.2003. 4.3. 4.3. Alleging that the respondents did not implement the aforesaid orders of the Tribunal passed in OA.No.5943 of 1999, petitioner No.1 filed CA.No.31 of 2003 and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.09.2003 directed the official respondents to communicate a copy of enquiry report to petitioner No.1 and to pass final orders duly taking into consideration the explanation of petitioner No.1. 4.4. Pursuant to the said order dated 29.09.2003, the respondents communicated copy of the enquiry report to petitioner No.1, vide Memo No.EA1/934/99-1, dated 06.11.2003, asking him to submit his written defence statement, if any, on the findings of the enquiry report within ten days therefrom and further, to indicate whether he desires a personal hearing in order to fix a date of hearing. In reply thereto, petitioner No.1 submitted a representation dated 21.11.2003 with a request to provide information/papers relating to enquiry report, however, in the said explanation, he neither denied the charges levelled against him nor requested any personal hearing. Since the respondents did not conclude the proceedings, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.12.2003 directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings on or before 31.01.2004, failing which, petitioner No.1 shall be reinstated into service. Subsequently, the respondents issued GO.Ms.No.7 dated 01.03.2004 removing petitioner No.1 from service by observing that copies of charge sheet and enquiry report and all other communications have been adequately served on petitioner No.1 and he is well aware of the contents therein, however, he has been avoiding service of the same on him by adopting dilatory tactics; and consequently, CA.No.31 of 2003 filed by petitioner No.1 was closed by the Tribunal. 4.5. Aggrieved by GO.Ms.No.7 dated 01.03.2004, petitioner No.1 filed OA.No.2039 of 2004 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 01.05.2008 dismissed the said OA holding that the impugned proceedings are perfectly valid and do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules; that the charge memo and the correspondence have not been served on petitioner No.1 at his residential address and as such, his opportunity to participate in the enquiry and putforth his defence was denied, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submitted that in spite of petitioner No.1 submitting representation dated 21.01.2004 seeking certain information and records, the same were not furnished to him, however, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the said fact. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in observing that no written statement was filed by petitioner No.1 despite orders of Tribunal in CA.No.37 dated 31.12.2003. 5.1. Learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the proceedings were not communicated to petitioner No.1 and the enquiry was conducted behind the back of petitioner No.1 without giving him an opportunity to defend his case. He further submitted that the Tribunal has also failed to consider that punishment of removal from service is a major penalty which can be imposed only when there is misappropriation of funds, etc, however, in the present case, no such charges are levelled against petitioner No.1 and as such, the punishment imposed on petitioner No.1 is highly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against him. 5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider that enquiry officer has not discussed each charge levelled against petitioner No.1 with available record and except holding that all charges levelled against petitioner No.1 are proved, no reasons were recorded by the Enquiry Officer. He further contended that the Tribunal committed error in dismissing the OA with an observation that impugned proceedings therein i.e., GOMs.No.7, dated 01.03.2004 are issued based on evidence which clearly established the guilt of petitioner No.1, without considering the fact that no opportunity was given to petitioner No.1 to participate in the enquiry and the same is an ex parte enquiry and as such, the findings of the Tribunal are perverse. By submitting thus, learned counsel prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 6. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- 1. Union of India Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others , [ AIR 1998 SC 2722 ] 2. State Bank of India Vs. D.C.Aggarwal , AIR 1993 SC 1197 . 3. Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India , 2002(7) SCC 142 . 4. B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India , AIR 1996 SC 484 . 7. Learned counsel also relied on judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.Pushpa Raj Vs. State Bank of India Vs. D.C.Aggarwal , AIR 1993 SC 1197 . 3. Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India , 2002(7) SCC 142 . 4. B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India , AIR 1996 SC 484 . 7. Learned counsel also relied on judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.Pushpa Raj Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC , Nizamabad , [ 1996(3) ALD 586 ] 8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that petitioner No.1 was aware of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, however, he avoided notices sent to him by the disciplinary authority; that the letters and communications sent to petitioner No.1 to the address reflected in the office records were returned, as such, notice was issued to him by way of paper publication in Deccan Chronicle on 03.12.2002 and Vaartha on 04.12.2002 notifying petitioner No.1 to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 17.12.2002; that despite the same, he did not cooperate with the enquiry and therefore, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report basing on the material available and the statement of the witnesses and came to a conclusion that the charges framed against petitioner No.1 were proved; that the said report of the Enquiry Officer was communicated to petitioner No.1 and the same was received by him on 20.11.2003; and that petitioner No.1 also submitted an explanation to the Government on 23.11.2023. 8.1. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that in his explanation, petitioner No.1 did not seek personal hearing and the Government, considering the enquiry report as well as the reply submitted by petitioner No.1, removed him from service vide GOMs.No.7 dated 01.03.2004, hence, the contention of petitioner No.1 that enquiry was conducted behind his back and no opportunity was given to him to participate in the enquiry are untenable. He further submitted that in the enquiry, as many as seven charges were framed against petitioner No.1; that the witnesses have given statements against petitioner No.1; that the Enquiry Officer, basing on the material available on record as well as the statements of the witnesses, has examined each article of charge and recorded his findings and hence, the allegation of the petitioners that enquiry report is not based on any evidence is contrary to the record and untenable. Learned Government Pleader finally contended that having avoided notices and having not participated in the enquiry, petitioner No.1 cannot now contend that the enquiry was conducted behind his back and that principles of natural justice are not followed and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 9. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material available on record vis-à-vis the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In Dinanath Shantaram Karekar’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that charge memo or charge sheet sent by registered post if returned with endorsement ‘not found’ cannot be treated as service on the employee. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case inasmuch as in the present case, when the notices sent to the petitioner’s address were returned, notices were issued by way of publication in two leading newspapers as stated hereinbefore, therefore, the service is sufficient, unlike return of cover with endorsement ‘not found’ in the aforesaid judgment. 11. In D.C.Aggarwal’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that imposition of punishment on material neither supplied nor disclosed to the delinquent is not proper and sustainable. In the case on hand, since the Enquiry Officer as well as the department have sent the communications to the address of petitioner No.1 reflected in his Service Register and further, publication was also issued. Further, the wife of the deceased employee in her letter dated 19.01.2004 accepted that her husband is residing in the quarters. Therefore, this Court holds that the contention of petitioner No.1 that without supplying the relevant material to him, he was imposed major punishment of removal from service is not tenable and sustainable. In the above facts and circumstances of this case, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable. 12. In Sher Bahadur’s case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence must link the charged officer with the alleged misconduct otherwise, it would be no evidence in law. 12.1. In the present case, in the enquiry, all the witnesses have given statements before the Enquiry Officer, wherein they deposed against petitioner No.1, therefore the Enquiry Officer considering the statements of the witnesses vis-à-vis the charges framed against petitioner No.1 held the same to be proved. 12.1. In the present case, in the enquiry, all the witnesses have given statements before the Enquiry Officer, wherein they deposed against petitioner No.1, therefore the Enquiry Officer considering the statements of the witnesses vis-à-vis the charges framed against petitioner No.1 held the same to be proved. Thus, in the present case, the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer linked petitioner No.1 with the charges of sexual harassment levelled against him and as such, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment is, in fact, followed in the present case. 13. In B.C.Chaturvedi’s case (cited supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal/High Court can direct the authority to reconsider punishment or it may itself, to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. 14. In the present case, the allegations levelled against the deceased employee are grave/serious in nature and the record also discloses that earlier different punishments ranging from censure to reduction in rank as well as permanent reversion to lower rank were imposed on petitioner No.1 which shows his conduct, therefore it cannot be said that punishment imposed on petitioner No.1 is disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against him. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reconsider the punishment imposed on petitioner No.1. 15. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Pushpa Raj’s (cited supra) relates to punishment based on the quantum of loss occasioned to the department. In the present case, the allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 are sexual harassment and hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present case. 16. Perusal of record would disclose that serious allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against petitioner No.1 and he was suspended pending enquiry and an officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made against petitioner No.1. 16. Perusal of record would disclose that serious allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against petitioner No.1 and he was suspended pending enquiry and an officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made against petitioner No.1. It is also evident from record, more particulary in the enquiry report, that initially, notice sent to petitioner No.1 by the Enquiry Officer to the address available in the records of the department were returned unserved with endorsement ‘unclaimed’; that subsequently, summons were served on petitioner No.1 on 11.12.2002 as per the postal acknowledgment No.RL1620, dated 07.12.2002, however, petitioner No.1 did not choose to appear before the Enquiry Officer and participate in the enquiry to putforth his defence, and therefore the Enquiry Officer was forced to issue notices through publication in two leading newspapers, as stated supra, and despite the same, petitioner No.1 did not participate in the enquiry, therefore the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and recorded the statement of witnesses on 17.12.2002, 18.12.2002 and 08.01.2003 and as many as seven charges were framed against petitioner No.1. 17. Perusal of the enquiry report also goes to show that the witnesses have given elaborate statements and the Enquiry Officer has dealt with each article of charge individually and has recorded his findings by duly taking into consideration the statements given by the witnesses and came to a conclusion that the charges leveled against petitioner No.1 are proved. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for petitioner No.1 that enquiry report is not based on evidence and that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. 18. As rightly pointed by the learned Government Pleader, in GOMs.No.7, Women Development and Child and Disabled Welfare (JJ) Department, dated 01.03.2004, it is specifically mentioned that wife of petitioner No1 in her letter dated 19.01.2004 has confirmed and accepted that her husband was residing in the quarters at No.10-4-44, Himayathnagar, to which charge memo and letters were sent, therefore the contention of petitioner No.1 that letters and charge memo were not sent to his correct address is factually incorrect and untenable. 19. 19. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda , [ (1989) 2 SCC 177 ] , the Hon’ble Suprme Court while dealing with the issue as to whether the Tribunal has power to modify the penalty awarded by the competent authority on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved, at para 27 of the judgment, held as under: “ 27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer or competent authority where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the competent authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with principles of natural justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter.” 20. By observing thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that order of the Tribunal imposing a lesser penalty cannot be sustained as the Tribunal cannot step into the shoes of inquiry officer if the penalty imposed by the inquiry officer is based on the proved misconduct. 21. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the case. 22. 21. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the case. 22. It is relevant to note that in the present case, petitioner No.1 did not choose to participate in the enquiry proceedings, which resulted in conclusion of enquiry proceedings ex parte and ultimately, for the proven misconduct i.e., Articles of Charge-I to VII, the order was passed by the competent authority imposing the punishment of removal from service on petitioner No.1. 23. It is apposite to note that no perversity or arbitrariness is attributed to the enquiry officer or the competent authority who passed the order imposing the punishment of removal from service on petitioner No.1. 24. This Bench is conscious of the fact that the scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited, and unless perversity or lack of evidence or that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the proved misconduct is shown, the Court cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 25. In the instant case, this Court finds that the report of the Inquiry Officer is based on evidence and the punishment imposed on petitioner No.1 by the disciplinary authority commensurates to the proven misconduct of petitioner No.1, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority, which was upheld by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 26. In the light of the foregoing reasons and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order and further, the petitioners failed to made out any case warranting interference of the impugned order by this Court. 27. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 28. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.