S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 26. 7. 1995 made in W. P. No. 9882 of 1991. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Cuddapah, the 2nd respondent herein, who is the disciplinary authority, after holding departmental enquiry against the appellant/ petitioner on the proved misconduct, by his proceedings dated 21. 1. 1991, removed the appellant from service as a disciplinary measure. The reliefs sought within the department were also denied to him. Hence he filed the writ petition assailing the disciplinary action token against him by the 2nd respondent and the appellate authority. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly and they areas follows: ( 2 ) THE appellant/petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in the year 1963 in Life Insurance Corporation of India and subsequently promoted as Section Head in the year 1980. Thereafter he was promoted as Higher Grade Assistant in the year 1981 which post he was holding at the relevant point of time. The petitioner claims to be a member of World Wide Church of God. One of the essential religious doctrines of this religious sect, according to the petitioner, is that Saturday should be observed as sabbath day and the member of the sect should not work for livelihood on SABBATH day. The petitioner, being an ardent member of the above sect, was applying for leave on every Saturday since 1981. It appears that despite the Management telling him and warning him not to avail leave on Saturdays and such special treatment on religious grounds would not be extended to him by the Management, the petitioner went on availing leave on Saturdays continuously. Under those circumstances, the disciplinary authority issued a charge sheet dated 28. 3. 1984 alleging breach of Regulations 21, 30 (1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (Staff Rules ). It reads-"that you had been absenting yourself from your duties on Saturdays continuously since 13. 11. 1982 for religious purpose without having obtained the permission of the competent authority; That inspite of our letters dated 27. 11. 1982, 27. 12. 1982 and 28. 1. It reads-"that you had been absenting yourself from your duties on Saturdays continuously since 13. 11. 1982 for religious purpose without having obtained the permission of the competent authority; That inspite of our letters dated 27. 11. 1982, 27. 12. 1982 and 28. 1. 1983, making it clear to you that it would not be possible for us to give special treatment to any employee in the name of religion and warning you that disciplinary action would be taken against you in case of recurrence, you continued to absent yourself from your duties on Saturdays, without having obtained the permission of the competent authority. That you absented yourself from duties despite refusal of sanction of leave on Saturdays viz. , 11. 6. 83, 18. 6. 83, 25. 6. 83, 2. 7. 83, 9. 7. 83, 16. 7. 83, 23. 7. 83, 30. 7. 83, 6. 8. 83, 13. 8. 83, 20. 8. 83, 27. 8. 83, 3. 9. 83, 8. 10. 83,15. 10. 83,22. 10. 83,29. 10. 83,5. 11. 83, 19. 11. 83, 26. 11. 83, 10. 12. 83, 24. 12. 83, 31. 12. 83, 7. 1. 84, 21. 1. 84, 4. 2. 84, 18. 2. 84, 25. 2. 84, 3. 3. 84, 10. 3. 84 and 17. 3. 84. That by your above referred acts, you have committed breach of Regulations 21 and 30 (1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Regulations), 1960 (Staff Rules) and acted in a manner highly prejudicial to good conduct for which any one or more of the penalties specified under Regulation 39 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 can be imposed upon you. You are hereby directed to state whether you admit that you are guilty of the charges mentioned above and, if not, you are directed to put in your written statement in support of your defence within fifteen days from the receipt hereof. In case your written statement as mentioned above is not received within the stipulated period, it will be construed that you have no explanation to offer and appropriate further action taken without any reference to you. " ( 3 ) THE appellant/petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 15. 8. 1984. It reads-"with reference to your charge-sheet dated 29. 3. 84, I humbly submit the following explanation for your sympathetic consideration. " ( 3 ) THE appellant/petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 15. 8. 1984. It reads-"with reference to your charge-sheet dated 29. 3. 84, I humbly submit the following explanation for your sympathetic consideration. I have been serving the Corporation for more than 20 years and have been carrying out my duties in a responsible manner and doing justice to my" job. As the years advanced and as the spiritual thirst grew in me and as laid down in the scriptures, I have been availing the Saturdays for worship of God and not for any use. The religious observances gave me lot of zeal to work more and to be more obedient and disciplined than ever and I never allowed the work to suffer at any stage. My leave applications including C. Ls. , were refused as per D. O. Letter dt. 5. 5. 83 and 6. 7. 83 and I was under the impression that the matter would have been receiving the attention of the higher authorities at zonal level and hoping that they may sanction leave as special case. In this connection, I submit that my absence was only for worship of God, and not for any use. I, however, regret very much for the violation of regulations 21 and 30 (1) of L1c of India (Staff) Regulations and deeply apologise for the same and assure my obedience to those regulations in the matter of leave or otherwise. I wish to submit that my absence on Saturdays was only for worship of God. I request you to consider my case sympathetically in view of long and obedient service. " ( 4 ) THE disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, thought it appropriate and necessary to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Accordingly, a regular departmental enquiry was held. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority, on appreciation of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and taking into account the facts and circumstances, imposed the penalty of removal from service by order dated 22. 12. 1986. Being aggrieved by the said order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Zonal Manager, South Central Zone, LIC of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein who, by order dated 21. 1. 12. 1986. Being aggrieved by the said order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Zonal Manager, South Central Zone, LIC of India, Saifabad, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein who, by order dated 21. 1. 1991, confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent removing the petitioner from service and dismissed the appeal. Assailing the validity of both the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the petitioner filed the writ petition. ( 5 ) BEFORE the learned single Judge, it was contended on behalf the petitioner that the impugned orders are unconstitutional being violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 21, 25, 39 and 41 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge, on consideration of the law on the point, did not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. However, the learned single Judge opined that there was no justification for the respondents to deny salary to the petitioner for the period from 17. 7. 1985 to 22. 12. 1986 and that period should have been treated as if the petitioner was in actual service. So opining, the learned single Judge, while upholding the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner by the respondents, directed the respondent-authorities to pay salary and other emoluments to the petitioner for the period from 17. 7. 1985 to 22. 12. 1986. Not being satisfied with the said relief, the petitioner has come up with this writ appeal. ( 6 ) SRI B. Tarakam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner quite understandably and fairly did not attack the impugned disciplinary action taken by the respondents as unconstitutional and violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Arts. 14,21,25,39 and 41 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel would submit that it is a matter of record that the appellant served the respondent-corporation quite faithfully, efficiently and without any blemish, but he availed leave on every Saturday being an ardent and faithful member of the world wide Church of God, and according to that religious sect in Christianity, working on Saturdays for livelihood is irreligious. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that when the petitioner realized that his conduct in not attending to duty on Saturdays was not in order, in his explanation to the charge sheet, he regretted for the same and expressed his willingness to work on Saturdays. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that even before the appellate authority, the petitioner submitted that he would work on Saturdays also and his case may be considered sympathetically. Having regard to the circumstances and the nature of the misconduct, the learned Senior Counsel would maintain that the extreme penalty of removal from service is totally unwarranted and unjust and, therefore, such penalty imposed on the petitioner would violate Article 14 postulates. ( 7 ) THE scope of judicial review of disciplinary action is very much defined and circumscribed by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. This Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution can step in and correct the disciplinary action if it finds that the findings, on which the delinquent-official is punished, are perverse, in the sense that they are not based on legal evidence. This Court can also step in and correct the disciplinary action where it finds that the quantum of penalty imposed on a delinquent in a given case, having regard to the gravity of misconduct committed by him, shocks the conscience of the Court and that it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the delinquent-employee. These are the only two circumstances where this Court can step in under Article 226 of the Constitution and interfere while reviewing disciplinary actions. ( 8 ) THE petitioner s conduct in absenting himself from duty on every Saturday continuously during the period in question, and that too despite warning and caution by the Management of the LIC, cannot be overlooked as a trivial misconduct or lapse. Attendance to duty is an important aspect of public employment. Irregularity in attendance would upset the functioning of the administration and sometimes the administration itself may come to standstill. Be that as it may, this Court while reviewing disciplinary action cannot act as an appellate authority to sit in judgment over the orders of the appellate authority or the disciplinary authority. Irregularity in attendance would upset the functioning of the administration and sometimes the administration itself may come to standstill. Be that as it may, this Court while reviewing disciplinary action cannot act as an appellate authority to sit in judgment over the orders of the appellate authority or the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, having regard to the admitted unauthorized absence of the petitioner on every Saturday for years and thinking that such absence was not in the interest of the administration of LIC, thought it appropriate to impose the penalty of removal from service. Therefore, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed by the respondent-authorities is not warranted and justified. ( 9 ) THIS takes us to the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. The conduct of the petitioner prior to the framing of the charges was total disobedience and in a way, questioning the authority of the employer to demand his services on Saturdays also. The charges themselves show that the petitioner went on absenting himself on every Saturday continuously for years despite the disciplinary authority warning him and cautioning him not to do so and that such a concession could not be granted to him on religious grounds. This misconduct committed by the petitioner, it cannot be said, would not warrant extreme penalty of removal of service. This is not one of the cases where, having regard to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the delinquent, the penalty imposed by the respondent-corporation should shock/shocks the conscience of the Court. It is well settled that questioning the lawful authority of the employer is the worst kind of misconduct, because, if such misconduct is overlooked or condoned, it would send wrong signals to other co-employees, which in turn would breed incorrigible indiscipline in course of time and ultimately such indiscipline would destroy the organization or the industry itself, as the case may be. Despite the employer warning and cautioning the petitioner not to avail leave on Saturdays, the petitioner disobeyed the lawful order of the employer with impunity continuously by absenting himself on every Saturday under the garb of his personal faith to a religious dogma and such a conduct is undoubtedly a grave misconduct. Despite the employer warning and cautioning the petitioner not to avail leave on Saturdays, the petitioner disobeyed the lawful order of the employer with impunity continuously by absenting himself on every Saturday under the garb of his personal faith to a religious dogma and such a conduct is undoubtedly a grave misconduct. Such a conduct would vest in the employer, whether public or private, to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner in exercise of the inherent power vested in it. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner-delinquent, in the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be said to be totally disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner nor can it be said that the punishment imposed would shock the conscience of the Court. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.