Sanjiv Khanna, J.
1. The present Writ Petition is directed against the Order of the learned Tribunal dated 19.9.2002 dismissing the Original Application No. 2387/2004 filed by the petitioner herein. By the impugned Order dated 19.9.2002, the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere with the Order dated 28.1.2002 passed by the Appellate Authority converting the punishment of dismissal to removal from service. The petitioner before the learned Tribunal had also challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Order dated 10th May, 2001 passed by the disciplinary authority and had prayed for a direction that he may be reinstated in service with consequential benefits.
2. The Enquiry Officer after recording evidence submitted a report dated 6th November, 2002 holding that the petitioner had unauthorisedly and willfully absented himself from duty on five occasions from June, 1997 to June, 1999 for a period of 57, 11, 6, 59 and 14 days (137 days in total). The Enquiry Officer in his report also mentioned that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and had earlier also absented himself on 34 other occasions during the period February, 1996 to November, 1998. For this the petitioner on several occasions had been warned and minor penalties including censure were awarded. He rejected the contention of the petitioner that due to illness petitioner was unable to attend duties.
3. The disciplinary authority-Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Delhi after examining and considering the facts of the case passed an order dated 10th May, 2001 dismissing the petitioner from service and directed that the five periods of absence be treated as periods not spent on duty.
4. On appeal filed by the petitioner, the Joint Commissioner of Police vide order dated 28th January, 2002 converted the punishment of dismissal, to removal from service but upheld the order of the disciplinary authority that the periods of absence should be treated as leave without pay.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 2387/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said Application was dismissed by the impugned Order dated 19th September, 2002, inter alia, holding that it has been found as a matter of fact that the petitioner did not apply for sanction of leave and had unauthorisedly and illegally absented himself from duty on five different occasions for a total period of 137 days from June, 1997 to June, 1999.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not well and because of his illness he had absented himself. He further submitted that the petitioner was referred to civil hospital and thereafter to L.N.J.P. hospital. It is submitted that in another disciplinary proceedings the petitioner has been awarded penalty of forfeiture of service of five years for charge of unauthorised absence from duty for period of nine months w.e.f. 11th September, 1999; whereas in the present case, for absence for a period of 137 days, penalty of removal from service has been awarded. It is, thereforee, submitted that the punishment of removal is highly disproportionate of the offence.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent controverter the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He relied upon the Orders passed by the Authorities and the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that this Court in view of the limited power of judicial review cannot go into the question whether the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the 'offence'.
8. Having considered the rival contentions and on going through the records, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. It is quite clear from the facts stated above that the petitioner had unauthorisedly absented himself from duty on five occasions (total 137 days), subject matter of charges. Earlier also petitioner had absented himself and penalty of censure, warning, etc. were awarded and the periods of unauthorised leaves were treated as dies non. In spite of these penalties and warnings the petitioner did not mend his ways and ultimately disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in respect of unauthorised leave of 137 days on five separate occasions between June, 1997 and June, 1999. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had absented himself during this period and did not perform the duties as a Constable in the Delhi Police. We feel that such unauthorised leave and absence cannot be tolerated in a disciplined police force.
9. As far as the plea of illness is concerned it may be mentioned that the petitioner was not able to produce any medical certificates for his absence on four occasions for period of 57, 11, 6 and 14 days. Reference in this regard may be made to his appeal filed under Section of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 read with Rule 24 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The relevant averment made in the said appeal read as under:-
'At present medical certificates in respect of the absences mentioned at sl. Nos. 1, 2 3 and 5 are not available.'
10. It may also be relevant to state here that several letters were written to the petitioner to report for duty. He was also directed to report to the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi for medical examination but there was no response or reply. The petitioner also did not file any response before the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. Regarding the medical certificates, learned counsel for the respondent specifically referred to the fact that the certificate relied upon by the petitioner has been purportedly issued by MCD Unani dispensary at Najafgarh. However, we do not consider it necessary to say anything more about this issue.
11. On the issue of quantum of punishment we do not think that it is a fit case in which we can interfere. It is a settled law that power of judicial review about quantum of punishment is extremely limited. It is only in cases where the punishment awarded is ex-facie highly disproportionate or unconscionable that the Court can interfere under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is for the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority to decide and determine the quantum of punishment.
(See Om Kumar and others v. Union of India reported at (2001) 2 SCC 386, Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another reported at : (2003)IILLJ267SC and Ranjit Thankur v. Union of India and others reported at AIR 1997 SC 2386.)
12. We also do not find any merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment of removal from service is highly disproportionate in view of the fact that in yet another matter disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence from duty for a period of nine months penalty of forfeiture of five years of approved service has been awarded. Punishment awarded in another proceedings for unauthorised leave and absence cannot be a ground to hold that the punishment is highly disproportionate to the 'offence'- subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings in the present case.
13. Each case has to be viewed and examined in the light of the facts and circumstances and evidence before the authorities concerned. The petitioner is a Constable in the Delhi Police and being a member of a disciplined force he was required to atleast inform and apply for leave duly supported by documents to the department. He did not move any application seeking leave on five occasions for different periods in total amounting to 137 days within a period of two years. It is quite clear that the petitioner is a habitual absentee of incorrigible type. Several warnings were given to him earlier also and minor punishments including censure were awarded to him. All these had no effect whatsoever.
14. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.
No costs.