C.L. Soni, J.

This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in the petition preferred by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 31.12.2009 of her removal from service without disqualification for future employment and the order dated 13.4.2010 rejecting the appeal preferred by her against the order of removal from service. Learned Single Judge has observed that in the departmental inquiry initiated against the appellant, the charge of unauthorized absence was proved against her. Such departmental inquiry was conducted following due principles of natural justice and on the basis of the inquiry report, the respondent Bank found it fit to inflict penalty upon the appellant of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant has not alleged any mala fide against any officer of the Bank. Learned Single Judge thus did not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2. We have heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Kabir Hathi for the appellant submitted that the appellant was granted maternity leave and was entitled to further extension of such leave. Mr. Hathi submitted that such maternity leave was required to be extended on account of serious medical condition of the child of the appellant. Mr. Hathi submitted that considering such circumstances, the respondents ought to have taken more humanitarian and compassionate approach and ought not to have charged the appellant with misconduct of unauthorized absence. Mr. Hathi submitted that charge of remaining absent for the period beyond the maternity leave could not have been considered as so grave so as to warrant punishment of dismissal of the appellant. Mr. Hathi submitted that it is not that the appellant did not request for extension of any leave nor it is a case of the respondent Bank that the appellant continued to remain absent without informing the Bank. Mr. Hathi submitted that under Regulation No. 36 of the Bank of Baroda (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 ('the Regulations'), total period of maternity leave available is of 12 months for the entire service career. Mr. Hathi submitted that in view of such provision made in the Regulation, the respondent Bank could have considered the circumstances of the appellant and granted whole period of maternity leave instead of taking harsh action of removing the appellant from service. Mr. Hathi submitted that removal of the appellant is on the basis of the misconduct of unauthorized absence stated to be proved against the appellant and therefore, it is not a simple removal from service though such removal of service is stated to be without disqualification. Mr. Hathi submitted that when the request for accepting the leave report was not being granted beyond the period of six month of maternity leave, the request of the appellant to permit her to resume duty was required to be accepted, however the respondent Bank acted inhumanly against the appellant and proceeded with a departmental inquiry and on the basis of the departmental inquiry, ultimately, the appellant is removed from service which is a punishment disproportionate to the guilt established against the appellant. Mr. Hathi has relied on Delhi High Court judgment dated 20.11.2006 in the case of Seema Gupta Vs. Guru Nanak Institute of Management, (2006) 135 DLT 404 and thus urged to allow the appeal.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Darshan Parikh for the respondent Bank submitted that the appellant was appointed on probation and whatever maternity leave available under the regulation was granted to her. Mr. Parikh submitted that the appellant was made aware while sanctioning the maternity leave for six months, that her probation period would stand extended to t