JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, C.J. - Challenge in this application is to the order under Annexure-19 dated 21st of June, 1975, by which the State Government have imposed punishment on the Petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding. The impugned order reads thus: A departmental proceeding was started against Sri Puma Chandra Das, Assistant Director, Bureau of Statistics and Economics, Orissa in P. & C. Department Memo No 17094/P, dated 7-12-1973. After due enquiry, Sri Puma Chandra Das has been found guilty of the charges framed against him. Five increments in his present scale of pay, i.e. Rs. 525.25 650 EB 40.850-EB-50-1150/- are stopped with cumulative effect as a measure of punishment. The relevant facts necessary for appreciation of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner are these Petitioner was Assistant Director, Bureau of Statistics and Economics. By order dated 15th of February, 1973 (Annexure-1) he was relieved of his duties from the said office with effect from the following day to enable him to join as Tabulation Officer in the Agricultural Census Office at Cuttack. Petitioner represented against deputation on the plea that he had already had two deputations preceding the one under Annexure-1 and proceeded on leave on medical grounds from March 5, 1973. When Petitioner went on leave one Sri Mahendra Nath Misra, another Assistant Director in the Bureau of Statistics and Economics was deputed as Tabulation Officer. On 3rd September, 1973, the State Government directed Sri Misra to revert tack to the Bureau of statistics and Economics and required the Petitioner to join as Tabulation Officer in the Agricultural Census Office at Cuttack. The Revenue Department being the controlling department of the Agricultural Census was requested to allow the Petitioner to join in his new post only on receipt of the fitness report in favour or Shri Das from the Standing Medical Board. Petitioner maintains that on 1-10-1973 the Standing Medical Board found him fit to join duty but refused to give a copy of the fitness certificate. Government offices were to remain closed from 2-10-1973 to 14-10-1973 for the Dasara holidays. The Director refused to accept Petitioner s joining report on 1-10-1973. When on 2-10-1973, Petitioner offered his joining report to the Assistant on duty in the Planning & Coordination Department, he also refused to accept the report saying that he had no instructions to accept it. Government offices were to remain closed from 2-10-1973 to 14-10-1973 for the Dasara holidays. The Director refused to accept Petitioner s joining report on 1-10-1973. When on 2-10-1973, Petitioner offered his joining report to the Assistant on duty in the Planning & Coordination Department, he also refused to accept the report saying that he had no instructions to accept it. On 14-10-1973, Petitioner met the Secretary of the Planning & Coordination Department. It is stated that the Deputy' Secretary advised the Petitioner to report at Cuttack in the Agricultural Census Office. On 16-10-1963, the fitness certificate was forwarded by the Planning & Coordination Department to the Revenue Department. On 19-10-1973, the Secretary to Government in the Revenue Department wrote to the Agricultural Census Commissioner to allow the Petitioner to join Petitioner alleges that he relinquished charge as Assistant Director in the Planning & Coordination Department on 22-10-1973 and after availing joining time from 23rd upto 29th October reported in the Agricultural Census Office on 30-10-1973. On 7-11-1973, the Revenue Department notified Petitioner s appointment as Tabulation Officer with effect form 30-10-1973. Petitioner represented that the period between 1-10-1973 and 29-10-1973 may be taken as duty or joining time under the peculiar circumstances narrated therein and for sanction of leave from 5th of March, 1973 till 30th of July, 1973 as his leave application had not been disposed of. On 7-12-1973, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him with a charge of wilful and unauthorised absence from duty between 1-10-1973 and 29-10-1973. Petitioner submitted his explanation and had prayed that a representation filed by him on 24-1-1973 be considered as a part of his explanation. On 14-2-1974, he was intimated that his representation of the 24th November, 1973, could not be referred to as a part of the explanation. Sri A.R. Nanda, I.A.S., Deputy Secretary, was appointed as Enquiring Officer Petitioner asked for representation through a legal practitioner but the request was not entertained. Enquiry was posted to 15-6-1974. On 11th of June, 1974, Petitioner asked for adjournment and production of certain files. These requests were rejected. On 15-5-1974, Petitioner appeared before the enquiring officer and asked for reconsideration of his earlier decision regarding legal assistance and suggested to the enquiring officer to refer the matter to the disciplinary authority. The enquiry started, at 4 p.m. on 15-6-1974. On 11th of June, 1974, Petitioner asked for adjournment and production of certain files. These requests were rejected. On 15-5-1974, Petitioner appeared before the enquiring officer and asked for reconsideration of his earlier decision regarding legal assistance and suggested to the enquiring officer to refer the matter to the disciplinary authority. The enquiry started, at 4 p.m. on 15-6-1974. On 26th of June, 1974, Petitioner requested the Secretary to Government in the Department to charge the enquiring officer on the allegation of bias and asked for adjournment of the enquiry posted to 28-6-1974. In the absence of any order of stay the enquiring officer protected with the enquiry and under protest the Petitioner withdrew from the enquiry. On 9-7-1974 Petitioner received intimation that the representation to the Secretary had been rejected. Ultimately on the basis of the enquiry report, the punishment already, indicated was given. By order dated. 25th of June, 1975 (Annexure-20) the absence for the period in question was converted into extraordinary leave under Rule 159(2)(b) of the Orissa Service Code. 2. In the writ application challenge against the punishment was advanced on several grounds: (i) In the absence of good and sufficient reasons, the proceeding and the punishment are liable to be quashed and whether there are good on sufficient reasons in justiciable. (ii) Punishment has not been imposed on the basis of objective consideration and assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances and after affording an opportunity to the Petitioner to place his own case; (iii) In view of the clear indication in the order dated 2-9-1973 issued by the Planning & Coordination Department that Petitioner was to be allowed to join as. Tabulation Officer only on receipt of the fitness certificate from the Standing Medical Board and the said certificate having been sent to the Revenue Department on 16-10-1973 and intimation thereof having been given to the Agricultural Census Commissioner on 19-10-1973, Petitioner not joining till 19-10-1973 could not have been the subject-matter of disciplinary proceeding; (iv) The facts of the case clearly indicate that the Petitioner was not in a position to report to duty though he was anxious to join after being certified to be fit to report to duty for reasons beyond his control and, therefore, he should not have been held responsible for the situation; (v) There is no material at all for coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner had wilfully and unauthorisedly absented himself from duty and, therefore, the finding is liable to be quashed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State by the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Planning & Coordination Department justifying the charge and the finding. 4. Allegation of bias against the enquiring officer has remained a bare allegation and there is really no material to support it. Prejudice on account of withholding representation through a lawyer has not been seriously pressed before us in view of the fact that the charge was simple, the evidence was also brief and Petitioner was sufficiently educated and had experience or life where by himself he could cross-examine witnesses supporting the charges and lead evidence in his own favour. There is also no clear material on record to show the antecedents of the marshalling officer. The rest of the contentions are essentially factual. Ordinarily, we would not have interfered in a case of this type. We have, however, a feeling that undisputed facts have not been taken note of in coming to the conclusion that Petitioner was guilty of the charge. As already pointed out, the order dated 3rd September, 1973 of the Planning & Coordination Department contained the following direction: ...2. On return from leave, Shri P.C. Dash, Assistant Director, now at Jhanjir Mangala, Post & Dist Cuttack is directed to report himself as Tabulation Officer in the Agricultural Census Office at Cuttack as per the earlier notification No. 476/P. dated 11-1-1973. 3. On return from leave, Shri P.C. Dash, Assistant Director, now at Jhanjir Mangala, Post & Dist Cuttack is directed to report himself as Tabulation Officer in the Agricultural Census Office at Cuttack as per the earlier notification No. 476/P. dated 11-1-1973. 3. On joining of Shri P.C. Dash, Assistant Director as Tabulation Officer in the Agricultural Census Office at Cuttack, Shri M.N. Mishra, Assistant Director is directed to revert back to the office of the Director, B.S E., Orissa as Assistant Director. 4. Revenue Department are requested to allow Shri P.C. Dash, Assistant Director to join as Tabulation Officer in the Agricultural Census Office, Cuttack, only on receipt of the fitness report in favour of Shri Dash from the Standing Medical Board.... There is no dispute that the Petitioner appeared before the Standing Medical Board on 1-10-1973 and was found fit to resume duty. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been admitted that on the very day at about 5 p.m. the Petitioner met the Director of Bureau of Statistics and Economics and wanted to join in the said Directorate. It is not in dispute that Government offices were closed from 2nd of October to 14th of October on account of the Puja Holidays. On the reopening day i.e. 15-10-1973, Petitioner met the Secretary to Government in the Planning & Coordination Department. Petitioner's allegation that he had asked for a copy of the fitness certificate from the Medical Board and the same has not been issued to him has not been denied. The fitness certificate was sent from the Revenue Department to the director or Agricultural Census only on 19-10-1973. Petitioner alleges that in view of the endorsement in Annexure-3, his joining report in the office of the Commissioner of Agricultural Census could not have been accepted without the fitness certificate. Since Petitioner had reported in his parent office immediately on the reopening day and since he could not report at his new station until the fitness certificate had been sent there, it was not appropriate to take a view that Petitioner had intentionally and wilfully absented from duty at a time when his joining report could not have been accepted. Mr. Rath for the Petitioner has emphasised upon Petitioner's conduct that without less of time, Petitioner wanted to join duty which at least indicated his anxiety to be back in service. Mr. Rath for the Petitioner has emphasised upon Petitioner's conduct that without less of time, Petitioner wanted to join duty which at least indicated his anxiety to be back in service. We have a feeling that these aspects have not been properly taken into account by the State' Government while proceeding to impose punishment. The power to punish a delinquent officer is of the State Government and the Court has no business to interfere with punishment when justifiably granted. The quantum of punishment is also not a matter for the Court to look into. But the position cannot be lost sight of that is without justification punishment be imposed, security of service might be -affected and ultimately the purpose of giving protection to public officers would be lost. We think it proper to reiterate that the legal grounds raised by the Petitioner are not entertainable. We would, therefore, have thought it proper to reject this writ application, but the features which we have highlighted above have given us the impression that this is a case where Government should review the question of punishment. In fact, in para-5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that a review lay under Rule 32 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 and the Petitioner has not availed of that opportunity. We think it is appropriate that the Petitioner should be given an opportunity of seeking the remedy notwithstanding the fact that there 'has been delay mainly on account of the reason that the writ application has been pending for quite some time and if an application for review under the rule is made, we are sure, Government would look into the case appropriately and deal with their employee with compassion and keeping the facts in view render such justice to him as he deserves. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation without costs. J.K. Mohanty, J. 5. I agree.