JUDGMENT : R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. The State has preferred the present writ appeal challenging the order of the writ Court in WP(MD).No.8733 of 2009 dated 14.11.2018. (A).Factual Matrix: 2.The respondent herein while he was working as a Head Constable in Ramanathapuram Police Station was transferred to Tirunelveli by way of an order dated 07.12.2003. The respondent had not complied with transfer order and he did not join in the transferred place. The department had treated him as a deserter and an order to the said effect was passed on 23.03.2004. Though the respondent had an opportunity to show cause against the said order, he has not chosen to do so. Therefore, the department had passed an order on 05.05.2004 to frame charges as against the respondent. After enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service on 14.08.2004. He had challenged the same in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 wherein an order was passed quashing the order of dismissal and remanding it back to the department for considering a lesser punishment as per Rules. After remand, the first appellant herein has passed an order on 12.06.2009 imposing a modified punishment of compulsory retirement from service. 3.The compulsory retirement order was challenged by the respondent herein in WP(MD).No.8733 of 2009. The writ Court had allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement in service with continuity of service, but without backwages. The writ Court had further held that the pension amount if any already paid shall not be recovered. The other retirement benefits, if received by the petitioner have to be refunded to the department with interest. This order is put to challenge by the State in the present writ appeal. (B).Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side: 4.According to the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, this Court while allowing the writ petition in WP(MD).No. 9277 of 2005 and remanding it back to the authority, had directed the department to impose lesser punishment other than the order of dismissal. Therefore, instead of dismissal, compulsory retirement was imposed by the department. However, the writ Court had arrived at a finding that the compulsory retirement order is not a lesser punishment, in view of the fact that the employee would still be kept out of service. He further submitted that the respondent being a deserter, the punishment of compulsory retirement is a lesser punishment. However, the writ Court had arrived at a finding that the compulsory retirement order is not a lesser punishment, in view of the fact that the employee would still be kept out of service. He further submitted that the respondent being a deserter, the punishment of compulsory retirement is a lesser punishment. As far as the Uniformed Service is concerned, no lenient view can be taken in the case of a deserter. 5.The learned Additional Government Pleader had further submitted that the writ Court had inferred from the order in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 that the Court had ordered reinstatement. In fact no such reference is made in the said order. 6.The learned Additional Government Pleader had further submitted that under Police Standing Order (PSO)-95, absence without leave for 21 days is an offence of desertion and the name of the officer has to be invariably struck off from the date of absence. Unless the officer makes a request within a period of two months from the date of commencement of absence, the application for reinstatement cannot be considered. In the present case, no such request emanated from the officer. Therefore, invoking PSO 95, an order of dismissal came to be passed. Therefore, the writ Court was not right in arriving at a finding that, once the order of dismissal was set aside in the first round of litigation, the authority has no other option than to reinstate the officer either with or without punishment. 7.The learned Additional Government Pleader had further submitted that the compulsory retirement order is a lesser punishment than that of the order of dismissal. If the authority is satisfied that the officer can be reinstated, only in such cases, the punishment of removal from service or compulsory retirement cannot be given. However, when the authority has arrived at a finding that the officer cannot be taken on duty, ordering compulsory retirement cannot be found to be out side the scope of PSO 95. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal. 8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the first round of litigation, this Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 has categorically arrived at a finding that the desertion on the part of the officer is not due to any malafide intention and therefore, set aside the order of dismissal. 8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in the first round of litigation, this Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 has categorically arrived at a finding that the desertion on the part of the officer is not due to any malafide intention and therefore, set aside the order of dismissal. Thereafter, the writ Court has directed the authority to consider for a lesser punishment as per Rules. PSO 95 does not provide for an order of compulsory retirement, when reinstatement has been directed by the writ Court. 9.The learned counsel had further submitted that due to transfer order, the officer undergone stress and did not attend duty. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement would be a harsh punishment which is not proportionate to the proved charges. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the writ Court. 10.We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (C).Analysis: 11.The order of compulsory retirement passed by the authority has been set aside by the writ Court on the following grounds. a)The order in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 in so many words has clearly indicated that the petitioner has to be reinstated in service. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement means that the petitioner is still kept out of service. b)As per PSO 95, the authority has got two options, either to dismiss the employee or to reinstate him with or without punishment. The first option exercised by the authority was set aside by the writ Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005. When the authority exercised its second option, an order of compulsory retirement cannot be passed, in view of the fact that again it would result in removal from service. c)The officer has to be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages. The pension amount that was already disbursed based on compulsory retirement order shall not be recovered. However, the other retirement benefits may be refunded to the department with 6% interest. d)The writ Court had proceeded to set aside the order of compulsory retirement primarily relying upon the order of this Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 and the Police Standing Order PSO 95. However, the other retirement benefits may be refunded to the department with 6% interest. d)The writ Court had proceeded to set aside the order of compulsory retirement primarily relying upon the order of this Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 and the Police Standing Order PSO 95. 12.A perusal of order of this Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005 reveals that the writ Court has only held that the absence from duty was not due to any malafide intention and therefore, the lesser punishment may be imposed as per Rules. There is no indication whatsoever in the said order that the officer has to be reinstated. Therefore, the writ Court was not right in drawing such an inference. The Court cannot draw inference with regard to a certain finding when the same has not been expressly recorded. In the present case, a reading of the order of this Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005, does not give any room for such an inference or interpretation that writ Court had wanted the department to reinstate the officer. 13.A careful perusal of PSO 95 reveals that if an officer had remained absent without leave for a period of 21 days, it results in desertion and the name of the member shall invariably be struck off from the date of absence. 14.In the present case, the officer had absented himself from 07.12.2003 onwards for 21 days. He has also not filed any application within a period of two months from the date of absence seeking reinstatement as contemplated under PSO 95(2). He was issued with a charge memo. After having participated in the enquiry, he was issued with an order of dismissal. When the order of dismissal was put to challenge before this Court in WP(MD).No.9227 of 2005, this Court had set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter back to the authority to consider imposing lesser punishment as per Rules. 15. PSO 95 (1), (2) and (3) is hereby extracted for easy reference: (1) Absence without leave for 2 1 days completes the delinquency of desertion, after which the name of member of subordinate service shall invariably be struck off from the date of absence. 15. PSO 95 (1), (2) and (3) is hereby extracted for easy reference: (1) Absence without leave for 2 1 days completes the delinquency of desertion, after which the name of member of subordinate service shall invariably be struck off from the date of absence. (G.O. 186, Judicial, 21st January 1984) (2) An application for reinstatement from an officer, who has been struck off as deserter, shall not be entertained unless, it reaches the Superintendent of Police or an officer of equal rank under whom the sub ordinate officer was serving within two months from the date of the commencement of the absence without leave. The Superintendent of Police or the corresponding officer of equal rank, as the case may be, shall not reinstate a deserter (a) until the deserter has attended in person which he should do, not later than the date prescribed by the officer dealing with the case, and has given his explanation for his absence without leave and (b) unless the Superintendent of Police or an officer of equal rank, as the case may be, is satisfied after such enquiry as may be necessary that the case deserves reconsideration. At the end of the two months, if no application for reinstatement is received and if the whereabouts of the deserter are not known, the officer dealing with the case will record in writing the reason for his being satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to give the deserter an opportunity of showing cause against his dismissal and then confirm the dismissal. In other cases, a charge should be framed and the procedure prescribed in Order No.80 complied with, before confirming the dismissal or reinstating the deserter confirming with or without punishment. (3) A Police Officer, who is struck off as a deserter, when appears before the Superintendent of Police or the competent authority as the case may be within two months, the authority should make up his mind whether the absence is on valid grounds and whether the period of absence is covered by a valid medical certificate. If the authority is not satisfied, the deserter should not be taken for duty. If on the other hand, the authority is satisfied, he can be taken for duty. In such cases, while disposing of Punishment Rolls, punishment such as removal, dismissal from service or compulsory retirement should not be given. Any other punishment can be imposed. If the authority is not satisfied, the deserter should not be taken for duty. If on the other hand, the authority is satisfied, he can be taken for duty. In such cases, while disposing of Punishment Rolls, punishment such as removal, dismissal from service or compulsory retirement should not be given. Any other punishment can be imposed. [DGP‘s Rc.No.235355/AP-IV(2)/2007, dated 06.12.2007] “ 16.A perusal of the above said Standing order would clearly reveal that only if the authority is satisfied with the explanation offered, the officer would get reinstated. Only in such circumstances, at the time of imposing lesser punishment, an order of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement should not be given. Therefore, it is clear that only if the explanation offered by the deserter officer is convincing, without imposing punishment of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement, he would be entitled to get reinstatement. On the other hand, if the explanation is not satisfactory, the authority is entitled to dismiss the officer. 17.In the case on hand, the authority having not been satisfied with the explanation offered, had initially issued an order of dismissal. However, when this Court set aside the order of dismissal and remitted it back to the authority for issuing a lesser punishment, the authority has proceeded to modify the order of dismissal into that of a compulsory retirement. Therefore, the order of compulsory retirement cannot be considered to be in any way out side the scope of PSO 95. The writ Court was not right in arriving at a finding that the order of compulsory retirement, in case of desertion is out side the scope of PSO 95. 18.Desertion is a serious misconduct as far as Uniformed Service is concerned. Merely because the officer was under stress due to the transfer from Ramanathapuram to Tirunelveli, he cannot remain absent and that too for more than 21 days. Therefore, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be found to be disproportionate to the proved charges. 19.When the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the explanation offered by the deserter officer is not satisfactory, this Court cannot substitute its opinion, unless the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are perverse. This Court cannot modify the punishment while exercising judicial review. Viewed from any angle, the order of Writ Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court cannot modify the punishment while exercising judicial review. Viewed from any angle, the order of Writ Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. (D).Conclusion: 20.In view of the above said deliberations, the order of the writ Court is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.