The quantum of penalty should not be interfered with unless shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. The gravity of the misconduct, the frequency of such conduct, and the member's service history are crucial in determining the appropriate penalty.

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.

2. Brief facts given rise to filing of writ petition and this appeal are that the writ appellant while working as constable in RAC Battalion of Police Department in the State of Rajasthan was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry by issuance of the charge sheet dated 16.01.2007 (Annexure-3) on as many as three charges.

3. The first charge was that having proceeded on sanctioned leave on 06.05.2006, which was only upto 20.05.2006, he did not return and continued on unauthorized absence without any leave sanctioned for the period after 20.05.2006.

4. The second charge was that without any sanctioned leave the appellant remained unauthorizedly absent for 118 days and appeared for duty as late as on 15.09.2006.

5. The third charge was that on earlier as many as 76 occasions, the appellant had remained unauthorizedly absent for which penalty of a total of 22 days R.I. and 56 days of PD was imposed and warning was imposed on three occasions and 809 days of extra ordinary leave was granted to him during his service. In addition to that, he has also been visited with penalty on eight occasions imposing withholding of five increments without cumulative effect and censure on four occasions and in this manner, the appellant-employee has failed to improve and has become incorrigible and in-disciplined employee as he is not interested in discharging his duties and thus liable for disciplinary action.

6. On such charges, departmental enquiry was proceeded with. After reply was obtained, evidence was collected and then the disciplinary authority found that charges were proved and imposed a penalty of removal from service taking into consideration not only the charges against the appellant was proved but also that in the past also, he had been visited with penalty on number of occasions which included large number of cases related to an unauthorized absence. When no relief was granted even in appeal, finally writ petition was filed which was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this court.

7. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that as far as imposition of penalty of removal from service is concerned, it is wholly unwarranted and shockingly disproportionate. Relying upon Supreme Court decision in the case of Central Industrial Security Force & Others Versus Abrar Ali, AIR 2017 SC 200 and various judgments referred to therein, it has been argued that in the aforesaid case, a similar combination of unauthorized absence and repeated act of unauthorized absence was meeted out with imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement by interfering with the order of imposition of penalty of removal from service.

8. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the long service tenure of more that 13 years, there may be number of occasions of some minor misconduct committed by an employee for which he has been already punished. If that is also taken into consideration at the time of imposing penalty of misconduct of unauthorized absence of 118 days, that would amount to double jeopardy.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order of removal, has clearly held and regularized the period of absence of 118 days as leave without pay, meaning thereby that the period of absence was ultimately regularized. If that be so, the order of removal from service on the ground of misconduct could not stand together with the same, therefore, for this reason also the imposition of penalty of removal from service was arbitrary, unwarranted excessive, harsh, illegal and liable to be interfered with.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State would argue that the appellant was member of Disciplined Force. The charge against the appellant is not an isolated case or a short period of unautho