ORDER : T. Madhavi Devi, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of removal from service vide Proceedings No.2128/B3/2006, dated 24.07.2007 and also the dismissal of the appeal vide Proceedings in Memo No.2128/B3/2006/1961, dated 02.04.2015, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable and unsustainable and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all back wages and attendant benefits and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1981 on a temporary basis and worked as a Junior Assistant and after completion of the probation period, his services were regularized. The petitioner was also promoted to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 23.08.1991 and after completion of ten years of service, the petitioner was placed under the Special Grade Post with a higher pay scale with effect from 01.08.2001. It is submitted that the petitioner has discharged his official functions without any complaint for almost twenty seven years. 3. However, vide Proceedings No.LC/E3/06, dated 14.03.2006, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that there was a delay in the remittance of revenue collected by him to the tune of Rs.80,048/- into the Board’s account during a cash collection drive and therefore, the petitioner has committed temporary misappropriation of funds for personal use. It is submitted that on the very same day, two other employees by name P.Vidya Shankar and K.Nagender, working in Operation and Maintenance Division No.12, were also placed under suspension with regard to very same incident. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo dated 24.04.2006, communicating the article of charge and thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry and submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer observed that the lapse on the part of the petitioner in depositing the amounts immediately may be condoned by collecting interest charges on delayed remittances and further observed that the petitioner was entrusted with collection work as well as the additional duty of supervision of cash counters and therefore, the delay occurred. The Enquiry Officer also calculated the interest for the delayed remittances at Rs.8,372.33 paise. 4. The Enquiry Officer also calculated the interest for the delayed remittances at Rs.8,372.33 paise. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ignoring the said recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice dated 23.02.2007 was issued as to why the petitioner should not be removed from service as a punishment for the charge. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.06.2007, but without considering the same in proper perspective, the respondent No.2, vide proceedings dated 24.07.2007, passed the punishment order of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Board on 09.08.2008, bringing to its notice that all other employees against whom similar inquiry was conducted were reinstated into service and that the petitioner was the only person who faced the punishment order of removal from service. However, there was no communication from the authorities on the said appeal or subsequent representations and therefore, the petitioner submitted an appeal on 31.07.2014, but the same was rejected on 02.04.2015 by observing that there were no fresh grounds to consider the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the charge memo and also the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the inquiry report and submitted that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has collected the money and not deposited the same until it was detected by the authorities. It is submitted that during the said period the computers were introduced and since the petitioner did not know how to operate the same and further, since there was a delay in the correction of CAN and also due to software and connectivity problems, the amount could not be deposited immediately and that the petitioner has admitted to the same and has also remitted the interest portion thereon. He further submitted that the findings in the inquiry report have not been considered by the disciplinary authority in proper perspective and the order of punishment has been passed. He further submitted that the findings in the inquiry report have not been considered by the disciplinary authority in proper perspective and the order of punishment has been passed. It is stated that in the case of other two persons i.e., P.Vidya Shankar and K.Nagender, the punishment was only the postponement of certain increments, whereas the petitioner’s twenty seven years of service has been set at naught by the order of removal from service and the petitioner has not been granted any retirement benefits due to the same and he is suffering financially and mentally due to the order of removal from service. 6. The averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3 are taken into consideration. 7. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has been given an ample opportunity to make a representation during inquiry and that the enquiry officer’s report was examined in detail and it was found that the petitioner had committed the misconduct of delayed remittance of the revenue collected to an extent of Rs.80,885/- with a delay ranging from 11 days to 767 days into the Board’s account and therefore, it was provisionally concluded to impose the punishment of removal from service and also recovery of interest at 18% per annum. It is stated that having regard to the same, a show cause notice was issued, to which he submitted his reply after a period of four months and after consideration of the inquiry report and explanation submitted by the petitioner, it was held that the charge was proved against the petitioner and therefore, removal from service under Rules 9 (ix) of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, was imposed on the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 03.02.2004. 8. It is further stated that in respect of the employees referred to by the petitioner i.e., P.Vidya Shankar and K.Nagender, it is stated that there was no person by name P.Vidya Shankar, but it is Mr.P.Uday Shankar, on whom similar charges were framed and Mr.P.Uday Shankar and Mr.K.Nagender, were both officers who had collected cash through manual receipts and handed over the same to the petitioner, who in turn, had to remit the same into the Board’s cash counter, but he had misappropriated the said amounts and failed to remit the same immediately. Therefore, the case of Mr.P.Uday Shankar was dealt with separately. Therefore, the case of Mr.P.Uday Shankar was dealt with separately. Therefore, according to respondents No.2 and 3, the case of the petitioner cannot be compared to the cases of Mr.P.Uday Shankar and K.Nagender. 9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the charge framed against the petitioner was that he has remitted the cash collected during the cash collection drive with a delay of 11 to 767 days and therefore, he has misappropriated the sums for his personal use. It is noticed that the amounts have been deposited by the petitioner prior to the investigation into the matter and it has not been brought out in the inquiry that the petitioner utilized these funds for his personal purposes. It is an admitted fact that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in remitting the sums into the Revenue’s account and the reasons given by the petitioner for such delay was delay in correction of CAN, software and connectivity problems and the voluminous workload which have not been held to be non- existing by the respondent authorities. They have not been denied in the order of removal or in the appellate order. It is also not denied that the petitioner has put in an unblemished service of twenty seven years prior to the order of removal from service. The petitioner had stated that even during the suspension period, he had not been paid any salary or subsistence allowance and that he has now been denied the pensionary benefits on the ground of removal from service. 10. In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the punishment of removal from service is harsh and excessive. The respondents have not taken into consideration the past service of the petitioner and that there were no charges of any misappropriation of any amounts. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the punishment order of removal from service has to be set aside. The course available to this Court at this juncture would be to remit the matter back to the authorities for reconsideration of his case. However, it is noticed that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 2007 and an appeal was also dismissed in the year 2016 and more than twenty years have passed since his removal from service. However, it is noticed that the petitioner was removed from service in the year 2007 and an appeal was also dismissed in the year 2016 and more than twenty years have passed since his removal from service. On enquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had seven years of service left at the time of removal from service. The petitioner has therefore not only lost seven years of service but also the pensionary benefits by virtue of the removal order. Therefore, in order to secure justice and to avoid further delay in the matter, this Court deems it fit and proper to modify the punishment order of ‘removal from service’ to ‘compulsory retirement’ with effect from 24.07.2007. The respondents are, therefore, directed to make the payment of the retirement benefits to the petitioner accordingly. The monetary benefits shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of all relevant papers from the petitioner. The petitioner shall submit all the relevant documents to the authorities to enable the authorities to process the papers and make the payment as directed above. Further, if the salary during the period of suspension has not been paid to the petitioner, the respondents are directed to look into the matter and pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for that period as per his entitlement. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.