JUDGMENT The Court: Inspite' of the matter being called on, none appear to oppose this application. Even the affidavit-in-opposition has not been filed. But it has been affirmed and copy whereof has been supplied to Ms. ChatteIjee who has fairly supplied a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition to the court. 2. At the initial stage His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice Shree Rang Misra (As His Lordship then was) was pleased to direct the authorities concerned to consider the question of quantum of punishment. The charge of misconduct is unauthorized absence which has since been proved by the Enquiry Officer. Such report and findings of the Enquiry Officer have since been accepted by the disciplinary authority' and affirmed by the appellate authority. I cannot possibly reappreciate such findings. The only question which comes to my mind is whether on the aforesaid grounds of unauthorized absence the extreme punishment of dismissal and/or removal from service is called for or not and for this very reason His Lordship Justice Misra gave opportunity to the authority concerned to consider the same. Such consideration is purported to have been done and copy whereof has been supplied to the writ petitioner. It has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit by the writ petitioner. 3. I have gone through the order on representation. Of course, the result is rejection. It appears to me that this representation has not been considered and disposed of according to the intention and wishes of His Lordship Justice Misra. It has not been recorded as to why the extreme punishment has been imposed. No reason has been given in the impugned decision as to why he should be removed and/or dismissed from service. No reason has been assigned as to what would happen in the event the writ petitioner is retained in service. The only reason has been given is that during his absence the CSTC suffered pecuniary losses. I am unable to comprehend this reason of suffering of losses as during his absence the petitioner has not been paid salary as it has been held unauthorized absence. So the question of suffering pecuniary losses does not and cannot arise. Therefore, according to me no reason has been given. So I am constrained to record that there is no reason for imposing this extreme punishment. 4. So the question of suffering pecuniary losses does not and cannot arise. Therefore, according to me no reason has been given. So I am constrained to record that there is no reason for imposing this extreme punishment. 4. The Apex Court has warned an employer time and again not to resort to extreme punishment unless it is warranted by reasons and circumstances. According to me this punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. I am told that the' writ petitioner has been removed from his service and as such is out of service for about eight long years. Therefore, this punishment of eight years by removal from service is good enough to mitigate the losses suffered. The petitioner shall be reinstated in his post but without giving any benefit whatsoever. He shall be reinstated within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. The aforesaid period of service shall be treated to be a punishment and he shall be allowed to resume his duty and discharge his duty normally till he attains his retirement age. Of course, the disciplinary authority would be at liberty to proceed against him if he commits any misconduct in' future. Accordingly, the impugned order dated November 28, 1995, is set aside and quashed. There will be no order as to costs. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox and signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings. Impugned order set aside.