M. K. Sharma, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated2. 2. 1994 imposing on the petitioner by the respondents a penalty of removal fromservice with effect from 7. 2. 1994. The petitioner has also challenged the orderspassed by the Appellate Authority on the appeal preferred by the petitioner as alsothe order passed by the Revisional Authority on the revision petition dismissing thesame. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 11 (i) of the CRPF Act. Thecharge relates to remissness of the petitioner in the discharge of duty. As against theaforesaid charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Memo of charges. The Disciplinary Authority considered the said reply and found that the reply is notsatisfactory and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into thecharges framed against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after completion of theenquiry proceeding submitted his report. The petitioner was afforded opportunityto make a representation which was filed by the petitioner and thereafter, aforesaidpenalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner filedan appeal, but since the said appeal was barred by time, the appeal was notentertained and rejected as such by the Appeffate Authority. As against the same,the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the respondents by order25. 9. 1995. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred thepresent writ petition in this Court only on 1. 7. 1996. ( 3 ) MR. S. M. Hooda, Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before methat the petitioner had over-stayed leave because of compelling circumstances ofhappening of natural calamity which fact although was pointed out to the Disciplinaryauthority as also to the higher authorities like the Appellate Authority and therevisional Authority was not taken note of and, therefore, the impugned orders arerequired to be set aside. ( 4 ) THE next submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner isthat the petitioner was not given any personal hearing by the Revisional Authoritywhile disposing of the revision petition and, therefore, the stay order passed by therevisional Authority is required to be set aside. Learned Counsel also submittedbefore me that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to theoffence alleged inasmuch as for over-stayal of leave, the petitioner should not havebeen imposed with a harsh penalty like removal from service. Learned Counsel also submittedbefore me that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to theoffence alleged inasmuch as for over-stayal of leave, the petitioner should not havebeen imposed with a harsh penalty like removal from service. In support of hissubmission that the punishment awarded should have been lighter than what wasordered. Counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singhchemma v. State of Punjab and Others reported in JT 1990 (2) S. C. 648 ( 5 ) MS. Barkha Babbar, Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, statesthat the petitioner was granted 60 days earned leave from 14. 5. 1993 to 12. 7. 1993 andthat after expiry of the aforesaid period the petitioner did not report for duty till19. 9. 1993 and, therefore, the petitioner over-stayed leave by about 68 days. Counselstated that the petitioner submitted an application for extension of leave only on20. 7. 1993 and there also prayed for extension of leave only for 30 days. The saidapplication was rejected and by memo dated 6. 8. 1993 the petitioner was directedto report for duty immediately, but inspite of the aforesaid memo the petitionerfailed to report for duty as commanded and reported for duty only on 19. 9. 1993. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner is in thehabit of over-staying his leave inasmuch as on earlier occasions also the petitionernever used to report back to the Unit after expiry of leave during the period of 3 year*-prior to the institution of the present departmental proceeding. The respondentshave set out details of overstayal of leave/punishment awarded to the petitionerin paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit relating to reply on merits to the grounds. Four incidents have been set out therein to show that the petitioner had over-stayedleave on earlier occasions also. Relying on the said facts Counsel submitted that thepunishment awarded to the petitioner is definitely in commensurate with theoffence. ( 7 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions, let me consider the merit of thesubmissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY after 14. 5. 1993, when the petitioner went on earned leave, heover-stayed leave by 68 days. ( 7 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions, let me consider the merit of thesubmissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY after 14. 5. 1993, when the petitioner went on earned leave, heover-stayed leave by 68 days. On that count the departmental proceeding wasinstituted by the respondents and on conclusion of the enquiry the petitioner wasfound guilty of the charge and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority passed theorder imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Counselfor the petitioner has not assailed before me the legality of the departmentalproceeding. Accordingly, I am not called upon in this case to determine the issueas to whether there was any violation of the principles of natural justice inconducting the enquiry. Nor sufficiency of materials in the proceeding is challengedbefore me. After proper and due enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of thecharge and accordingly the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removalfrom service. The Disciplinary Authority as also the Revisional Authority being factfinding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a. view tomaintain discipline and on consideration thereof both of them are of the opinion thatthe punishment imposed on the petitioner is proper and valid. The said authoritiesare also invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping inview the magnitude or gravity of misconduct. In B. C. Chaturuedi v. Union of Indiaand Another reported in 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Lands) 80, the Supreme Courthas held that the High Court/tribunal while exercising the power of judicialreview, cannot normally substitute their own conclusion on penalty and imposesome other penalty. It was further held that if in case the High Courtis of the opinionthat the punishment imposed shocks the conscience, then the only course open it is to direct the Disciplinary/appellate Authority to reconsider the penaltyimposed. The decision of the Supreme Curt in Mohinder Singh Chemma (supra) isdistinguishable on facts for in that case the petitioner overstayed leave just by oneday each in two consecutive years. The same is not the case here in the present case. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled law in respect of the issue with regard toquantum of punishment, this Court even if it considers that the punishmentawarded is disproportionate cannot substitute the same, but, has to refer back thematter either to the Revisional Authority or to the Appellate Authority or to thedisciplinary Authority. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid settled law in respect of the issue with regard toquantum of punishment, this Court even if it considers that the punishmentawarded is disproportionate cannot substitute the same, but, has to refer back thematter either to the Revisional Authority or to the Appellate Authority or to thedisciplinary Authority. The only question, therefore, to be considered here iswhether the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioneris in any manner shocking and/or arbitrary. The petitioner over-stayed leave byabout 68 days for which the departmental proceeding was instituted wherein hewas found guilty. Past incidents of the petitioner over-staying leave within threeyears thereto have also been indicated in the counter affidavit. It thus appears thatthe petitioner is in the habit of over-staying his leave as and when he is permittedto avail of leave. When those circumstances are taken note of and consideredtogether with the fact that the petitioner was working with a disciplined force, itcannot be said that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is disproportionateto the offence or that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is shocking to theconscience. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner also submitted no finding has been recorded bythe Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. On perusal of therecord of the Disciplinary Authority, I find the allegation to be baseless. The Enquiryofficer found the petitioner guilty of the charge on consideration of the evidence onrecord. ( 11 ) THE next issue raised is with regard to not giving personal hearing to thepetitioner by the Revisional Authority. It is settled law that personal hearing iscalled for only when the Statute requires such a personal hearing to be given to theperson aggrieved. No such Rule is in existence in the CRPF Rules, 1995 whichgoverns the case of the petitioner. In absence of any such Rule enjoining therespondent to give a personal hearing to the petitioner no infirmity is found in theaction of the respondents in not giving a personal hearing to the petitioner beforedisposal of the revision petition. No other ground is urged by the petitioner in thepresent case and thus there is no merit in this writ petition and the same accordinglystands dismissed. .