S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the management of praga Tools Limited, removing the petitioner from services as a disciplinary measure, is assailed. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, while serving as assistant Security Officer, was served with a charge memo dated 2/12/1990. The chargesheet reads as under:praga Tools Limited no:269 Dated: 2/12/1990 shri T Narayana, staff No. 269, asst. Security Officer, mtd. Thro Sr. Security Officer charge-sheet your are charged as under:1. You have unathorisedly remained absent from duty from 24/03/1990 till date;2. You have left the Head Quarters i. e. , secunderabad without obtaining permission from the Management to go to Wanaparthi, kurnool in October, 1989 and November, 1989 respectively. 3. You have deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Management by not appearing before the Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital on 27/07/1990, 23/08/1990 examinations:4. You have refused to receive official communication No. 269/mb of 1990 dated 23/11/1990 from the Assistant personnel Manager (IRandw ). The above circumstances appearing against you constitute misconducts under Rules 5 (5),5 (6), 5 (7), 5 (9), 5 (18), 5 (20) and 5 (28) of the Praga Tools Limited Conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 read with Rule 2 (a) of the Praga Tools Limited leave Rules. You are therefore, required to submit your explanation in writing within three days of the receipt of this letter, as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you. Should you fail to submit your explanation as required, it will be deemed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter will be disposed of without any further reference to you. for Praga Tools Limited, sd/dy. General Manager (Panda ). ( 3 ) THE petitioner did not file any reply to the charge memo. In the circumstance, the management appointed Sri S. Surin, Manager (Personnel) as the Enquiry Officer, to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner in terms of Praga Tools Limited conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules ). The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted report on 3/04/1991, recording the finding that the charges 1 to 3 are proved, and charge No. 4 is not proved. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted report on 3/04/1991, recording the finding that the charges 1 to 3 are proved, and charge No. 4 is not proved. The second respondent, who is the disciplinary authority as regards the petitioner under the rules, on receipt of the report from the Enquiry Officer, and after issuing second show-cause notice to the petitioner and on consideration of the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer, thought it appropriate to remove the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. Accordingly, the second respondent passed Order No. 269 dated 24/09/1991, removing the petitioner from service with immediate effect. ( 4 ) THE petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent, preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 20/12/1991. Since there was delay on the part of the first respondent to hear and dispose of the appeal, the petitioner on an earlier occasion had filed WP No. 4437 of 1992 in this Court, and this Court disposed of that writ petition on november 12, 1997, directing the first respondent-Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after giving notice to the petitioner through his counsel and giving him reasonable opportunity to submit his case. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the Appellate authority heard and disposed of the appeal on 4/08/1998, dismissing the appeal. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity of the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the petitioner culminating in the order of the appellate Authority dated 4/08/1998. ( 5 ) MR. D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner- delinquent, contended that the disciplinary proceeding is vitiated on account of the objectionable procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in the matter of conducting the Enquiry in pursuance of the charge memo dated 2/12/1990. The learned counsel would draw the attention of the Court to the copies of the proceedings of the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner, which are produced at Pages 21 to 34 of the material papers filed by the management to highlight the point that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not in conformity with the principles governing the recording of evidence and fair procedural norms. The learned counsel would also contend that even assuming that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority could be sustained, the penalty of removal of the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure is totally irrational and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the Standing counsel for the respondent- management would support the impugned action. ( 7 ) SHOULD it be noted at the threshold that when the validity of a disciplinary action is assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has to see whether the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority in conducting the departmental and domestic enquiry is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and fair play in action and statutory procedural regulations, if any, and whether the findings recorded by the enquiry officer/enquiring Authority and accepted by the disciplinary authority are based on some substantive acceptable evidence. The Court is not entitled to go into the question of adequacy or sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which the findings are recorded. If there is some acceptable legal evidence which could support the findings, the findings should be sustained. Should it also be noted that in departmental and domestic enquiry, strict rules of evidence have no application. The only thing to be seen is whether the delinquent-employee was given a fair and reasonable opportunity by the disciplinary authority to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. ( 8 ) IN the premise of the above well-settled principles governing the departmental enquiry, let me consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner directed against the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer. Should it be noted that here is a case where a delinquent, at no stage of the proceedings, chose to file his replies thereby meaning that he did not file reply to the charge memo; he did not file reply to the second show-cause notice. He did not cross-examine any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the management, and he refused to tender himself for cross-examination by the presenting officer. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice of the enquiry through his wife and he appeared before the enquiry Officer. He did not cross-examine any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the management, and he refused to tender himself for cross-examination by the presenting officer. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with notice of the enquiry through his wife and he appeared before the enquiry Officer. It is true that if the Court were to apply strictly the principles governing recording of evidence, in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act, it could find the errors on the part of the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry. But, that cannot be the reason for the Court to set at nought the disciplinary action solely on the above ground. After perusing, the enquiry proceedings placed before the Court, I am satisfied that the petitioner has had a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. But, the petitioner refused to avail of the opportunity. Therefore, it should not lie in the mouth of the petitioner-delinquent now to contend that he was not given a fair opportunity of being heard in the departmental enquiry. ( 9 ) SINCE the learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail the validity of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary and Appellate authorities, there is no necessity for the Court to review the validity of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Be that as it may, both the learned counsel for the parties took me through the enquiry report and on perusing the enquiry report, I find the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the charges 1 to 3 are proved is based on and fully supported by oral and documentary evidence. ( 10 ) ADVERTING to the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is totally disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner, suffice it to state that it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, for example, in Union of India v. Paramananda, AIR 1989 SC 1185 : 1989-II-LLJ-57, State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow, 1994-1-LLJ-872 (SC), and in B. C. Chaturvediv. Union of India, 1995 (6) SCC 749 : 1996-1-LLJ-1231 to mention a few, that if the penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on a delinquent on the basis of the proved misconduct, the High court and Tribunals have no power to substitute their own discretion for that of the authority, unless in a given case the particular penalty imposed by the authority or the employer shocks the conscience of the Court. This is not such a case where the penalty of removal imposed by the respondent- management shocks or should shock the conscience of the Court. No reasonable employer could countenance the misconduct committed by the petitioner. It is quite startling that the petitioner could choose to submit leave application requesting the management to grant leave from 15/05/1990 till "called for enquiry", and another leave letter requesting the management to grant leave from 15/05/1990 till "resignation is submitted", and these two undated leave applications were sent to the management after leaving the office and the headquarters unauthorisedly. The plea of the petitioner that he had instructed his son to telephone and tell the security office about his leaving the headquarters, was not believed by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority for the valid reasons stated in the report. The petitioner has utterly failed to place any circumstance in the course of enquiry, which could justify his going on long leave without prior sanction and intimation to the management. ( 11 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, and having due regard to the proved misconduct, I do not think that the penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner as a disciplinary measure is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner. There are no mitigating circumstances which could persuade this Court to interfere with the disciplinary action and reduce the penalty. ( 12 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.