JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - This petition is directed against order of dismissal of petitioner, a Head Constable in Industrial Security Force, for having proceeded on leave in anticipation of it being sanctioned. The questions are two fold one if the order suffers from any error of law. Second, even if the findings of Inquiry Officer are correct is the punishment of removal from service of a person who had put in sixteen years with unblemished service commensurate with guilt. 2. From evidence led by both parties the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner went to P.T.P.L. hospital Panki on 14th August, 1985 where he was given medicine and referred to hospital at Mariumpur. But according to petitioner he could not reach there due to lack of facility. He, however, got himself examined by a private doctor who recommended rest for one month. The certificate issued by the doctor was endorsed by the doctor at Panki as well. Thereafter he contacted the duty officer in control room on 16th August, 1985 and .informed him that he has been granted leave for one month and he was going home. The officer, however, told him to obtain leave from Assistant Commandant. But petitioner went away. The Inquiry. Officer on these facts was of opinion that the petitioner who was a responsible officer and had but in sixteen years of service should not have proceeded on leave on its own without obtaining leave from proper authority merely on recommendation of the doctor. Therefore, he was guilty of misconduct and the charge of leaving the unit without leave was established. The disciplinary authority accepted the recommendation and held that desertion of duty without prior sanction of leave was a serious charge in a discipline force, therefore, he was liable to be removed from service. 3. Various infirmities have been attempted to be pointed out in the impugned order. For instance, it was urged that suspension order was passed without notice, Inquiry Officer was biased, principles of natural justice were not observed during inquiry, no notice was given before imposing the punishment. One of the submissions have any merit. Neither the allegation of bias against Inquiry Officer nor any procedural irregularity during inquiry could be established. Nor the order is vitiated either because no notice was given prior to suspension or before the order was passed by disciplinary authority. 4. One of the submissions have any merit. Neither the allegation of bias against Inquiry Officer nor any procedural irregularity during inquiry could be established. Nor the order is vitiated either because no notice was given prior to suspension or before the order was passed by disciplinary authority. 4. The issue that survives is if the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the charge found against petitioner. Although quantum of punishment is in discretion of disciplinary authority and this Court in writ jurisdiction usually does not interfere with it. But with widening of ambit of Article 14 and recognition of right of livelihood, correctness of the order has to be tested on touchstone of arbitrariness as, 'where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that is it unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14 and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16 (E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 2 SCR 358. In service rules dealing with Civil or Police or security forces, the provision for minor and major penalty is usual feature. It is implicit necessity, therefore, that the disciplinary authority before bringing the curtain down on service career of an employee must objectively apply its mind to avoid the punishment from becoming, shockingly disproportionate regard being had lo the charge framed against him Ved Prakash v. M/s Delton Cable India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 914 . Tested on this the order becomes vulnerable. Not with a view to reappraise the evidence but to demonstrate arbitrariness it is necessary to mention that petitioner was taken ill on 14th August, 1985 and his illness required greater medical care, therefore, the doctor of the hospital at P.T.P.L. Panki referred it to hospital at Mariumpur. But the petitioner could not afford to go due to lack of facility. Therefore, when he could not go the Mariumpur he got himself examined by a private doctor. He advised him rest for one month. It was counter - signed by Medical Officer - in - charge at Panki. The conduct of the petitioner in getting himself examined by a private doctor cannot be characterised as unreasonable. Therefore, when he could not go the Mariumpur he got himself examined by a private doctor. He advised him rest for one month. It was counter - signed by Medical Officer - in - charge at Panki. The conduct of the petitioner in getting himself examined by a private doctor cannot be characterised as unreasonable. If the hospital at Panki could not give him proper medical aid and he could not go to Mariumpur then it could not be held that he in getting treatment with a private doctor was acting in a manner contrary to anyone placed in those circumstances. According to petitioner on the certificate and his service condition he was permitted by his shift incharge to proceed on leave in support of which he has filed extract of G. D. But the finding of Inquiry Officer being against it may be ignored. Yet the illness of petitioner, its seriousness, treatment by private doctor, his recommendation for one month's rest, agreement of the Medical Officer with his opinion the petitioners approaching his superior officer and informing him of his condition and going home have been found even by Inquiry Officer. Once the Medical Officer of Panki hospital agreed with the opinion of private doctor the Medical Certificate became unassailable. It could not be ignored either by the shift officer or the Assistant Commandant. The petitioner in getting the counter signature did all that was required. If on this counter - signed certificate the petitioner informed his shift officer and went away it is very doubtful if he could be charge - sheeted for being absent 'bhagaura'. He could reasonably hope that the medical certificate having been counter - signed the sanction of leave was a mere formality. Even the Inquiry Officer did not find that petitioner was not ill or the leave was not required. But as already stated earlier since the jurisdiction of this Court is very limited in these matter even accepting he finding of Inquiry Officer can the petitioner's conduct be stamped with that degree of unpardonable behaviour which could not be condoned except by up - rooting. Is there no distinction between carelessness, rashnes, insubordination and lack of integrity etc. Each and every of these may be misconduct. But whether punishment of removal was called for or not depends on facts of each case. Is there no distinction between carelessness, rashnes, insubordination and lack of integrity etc. Each and every of these may be misconduct. But whether punishment of removal was called for or not depends on facts of each case. If a imposing the punishment the disciplinary authority looses sight of it the order is liable to become arbitrary. In Ved Prakash v. M/s. Delton Cable, AIR 1984 SC 914 , the removal was held to be bad because the charge of abusing colleages and the superior officer even though was misconduct was not very serious therefore, he penalty of removal was held to be shockingly disproportionate. In Bhagat Ram v. State, AIR 1983 SC 454 , the Hon'ble Court held, it is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct would be violative of Articles 4. In K.C. Roy Chaudhary v. Union of India, 1987 (54) FLR 801, a division bench of this Court of which one of us (R.M. Sahai, U) was member held, "depriving a person of his bread and butter without adequate justification is arbitrary exercise of power violative of Constitutional guarantee under Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution". 5. On ratio of these decisions and on facts found it cannot be disputed the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the guilt of petitioner. The order of removal consequently is liable to be quashed. But what should be done? Should the Disciplinary Authority be directed to pass fresh order and prolong the agony or to issue directions which may bring an end to these proceedings. In this respect also the guideline is provided by Bhagat Ram's case (supra). Therefore, on facts found by the Inquiry Officer but without meaning to exercise discretion of Disciplinary Authority the interest of justice shall be served if the order directing removal of petitioner is quashed and petition is allowed subject to following conditions : (1) The order of removal dated 30th August, 1986 is quashed. (2) The petitioner shall be reinstated within two weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the Commandant Central Industrial Security Force, Panki, Kanpur. (3) The petitioner shall not be entitled to its salary from the date of removal till the date or reinstatement. (4) His one increment shall be withheld.