Order We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. The impugned order (Annexure-7) has been attacked on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that as order is punitive in character and the same could not have been passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Secondly, it is contended that assuming the allegations to be true, having regard to the explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding the serious ailment of her daughter, the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. 3. Anrrexure-7 proceeds on the basis that the petitioner after marking her presence on 25.1.1991 left the office. The explanation of the petitioner is that she had come to the office and on being informed about serious ailment of her daughter, she informed the Receptionist and left for her home to take her daughter to a doctor for medical treatment. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, assuming that on one day she was absent after she had marked her presence. The extreme penalty of removal from service appears to be excessive and harsh. We, therefore, follow the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1990 SC 1 B.R. Singh v. Union of India) and quash the order (Annexure-7). The counsel for the petitioner agrees and we order accordingly, that the petitioner shall be reinstated without back wages. The petitioner may present herself for work within ten days from today and on her presenting herself the Respondents shall assign her work. 5. The petitioner shall also produce a copy of this order before the concerned authority. 6. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.