Judgment By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the award of Labour Court dated 27.7.1995, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, by which the Labour Court has held that there was no illegality in dispensing with the services of the petitioner as Assistant Mechanic with effect from 13.7.1987. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Miglani learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.N. Sharma learned counsel for respondent, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Mechanic with the respondent and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 20.7.1974. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 13.7.1987 against which the petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the same was referred to for adjudication to the Labour Court. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with by the appointing authority solely on the ground that he was habitual in remaining absent from the workshop without application, for which he was warned a number of times and he was also awarded minor punishments. Even then the petitioner did not improved and continued to remain absent without any leave. An inquiry was conducted and in inquiry the charges were proved, consequently final order of punishment was passed terminating the services of petitioner with effect from 13.7.1987. The Tribunal affirmed the order by award dated 27.7.95. The petitioner has challenged the award on three grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charge sheet was filed by the person who was the inquiry officer and also the punishing authority. I do not find any force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The charge sheet is to be filed either by the appointing authority or by the inquiry officer. In the present case the appointing authority is the punishing authority and he was also the inquiry officer. As such there was nothing wrong in submitting the charge sheet by the inquiry officer. Further there is no bar of punishing authority to be the inquiry officer. The complaint was filed against the petitioner by another officer who is neither inquiry officer nor the punishing authority. As such there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Further there is no bar of punishing authority to be the inquiry officer. The complaint was filed against the petitioner by another officer who is neither inquiry officer nor the punishing authority. As such there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he was not given the opportunity of hearing and was not supplied inquiry report. He has placed reliance on the case on Union of India versus Mohmmed Ramzan Khan reported in A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court page 471. He has placed reliance on the paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgement which is quoted as under: "We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter." 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director E.C.I.L. Hyderabad versus B. Karunakar and others reported in 1993 (4) Supreme Court Cases page 727 while dealing the effect of non-supply of copy of inquiry report to the delinquent officer has held as under:- "Hence, in all cases where the inquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the court/Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/ Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of the punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present." 6. If after hearing the parties the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/ Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of the punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present." 6. The inquiry report was filed along with counter affidavit and the petitioner has said nothing about the inquiry report in his rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner was given opportunity to show how his case was prejudiced because of non supplying of inquiry report. The petitioner could not show any prejudice because of non-supply of the report. 7. Further the Apex Court clarifying the law laid down in Mohmmed Ramzan Khan's case has held in paragraph-75 as under:- "Mohd. Ramzan Khan ratio giving the benefit to him and companion appellants was valid in law and not, therefore, per incurium and was legally given the reliefs. The contention of the counsel for the employee/ Government servants that the denial of Ramzan Khan ratio to the pending matters offend Article 14 is devoid of substance. It is seen that placing reliance on the existing law till date of Ramzan Khan the employers treated that under law they had no obligation to supply a copy of the enquiry report before imposing the penalty. Reversing the orders and directing to proceed from that stage would be a needless heavy burden on the administration and at times encourage the delinquent to abuse the office till final orders are passed. Accordingly I hold that the ratio in Mohd. Ramzan Khan case would apply prospectively from the date of the judgement only to the cases in which decision are taken and orders made from that date and does not apply to all the matters which either have become final or are pending decision at the appellate forum or in the High Court or the Tribunal or in this Court." 8. The case of Mohmmed Ramzan Khan was decided on 20.10.1990 whereas the order of dismissal was passed on 13.7.1987 and as such the petitioner can not take benefit of the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan. Further as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court the delinquent is entitled to get a copy of inquiry report when inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer and not by disciplinary authority. Ramzan Khan. Further as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court the delinquent is entitled to get a copy of inquiry report when inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer and not by disciplinary authority. When the inquiry is conducted by the disciplinary authority himself, the delinquent cannot claim report of inquiry. Thus, non supply of inquiry report before imposing penalty in the present case does not vitiate the order of termination. 9. The petitioner has further submitted that only one charge was leveled against the petitioner that the petitioner was habitual in remaining absent from the office and that too without any leave granted by the competent authority or even without any application. The inquiry officer has not dealt properly with the charge. From the perusal of the inquiry report it appears that the petitioner was given full opportunity, and after going through the records, inquiry officer has given findings, which cannot be said perverse. 10. The third submission of the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner was to remain absent from the duty and the charge was not so grave for which the petitioner should be given punishment of termination. The Tribunal has not dealt the principle that the punishment awarded should be commensurate to the gravity of the charges and as such the findings that the award of Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is settled legal position that it is for the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate punishment. The Courts can not substitute its own view to that of the disciplinary authority on the nature of punishment to be imposed upon the delinquent officer. Where the disciplinary authority on the basis of finding of dereliction of non reporting for duty, dismissed the delinquent officer from service, the High Court can not interfere with the punishment awarded. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on various judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has placed reliance in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and others report in A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court page 484 and has submitted that the High Court or Tribunal has the power to substitute its own conclusion on penalty and can impose some other penalty. The Courts have sufficient power to appropriately mould the relief. He has placed reliance in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and others report in A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court page 484 and has submitted that the High Court or Tribunal has the power to substitute its own conclusion on penalty and can impose some other penalty. The Courts have sufficient power to appropriately mould the relief. In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the disciplinary authority and on appeals, appellate authority are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude of gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review can not normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. The Court has further held that if the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the disciplinary/ appellate authority to re-consider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereon. 11. Firstly the High Court under Article 226 is not exercising the power of appellate authority and as such can not normally substitute in its own conclusion of penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the High Court or the Tribunal can appropriately mould the relief in exceptional and rare cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/ Tribunal. In the present case the circumstances are not such as narrated by the Hon. Apex Court. Remaining absent from duty is a great and serious misconduct. In the present case the misconduct was not repeated by the petitioner twice, thrice but a number of times. He remained absent at number of times. In the year 1986-1987 he was warned by the employer and the employer also punished him with minor penalty. In spite of these the petitioner did not improve and continued to remain absent. 12. There can not be two opinions on the question of remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty by the employee is a grave and serious misconduct and on proof or admission of the same, the employer has all the rights to dispense with the services of such an in-disciplined employee. 12. There can not be two opinions on the question of remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty by the employee is a grave and serious misconduct and on proof or admission of the same, the employer has all the rights to dispense with the services of such an in-disciplined employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Modaliar Education Institution versus Educational Appellate Tribunal reported in 1999 (7) S.C.C. page 332 in para-8 has held as under:- "The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is confined that there was no enquiry in terms of Section 6 of the said Act. There is no submission of any defence on merit. Even before us, when we granted learned counsel an opportunity to give any prima facie or plausible explanations on opportunity or an enquiry of course is a check and balance concept that no one's right be taken away without giving him/her opportunity or without enquiry in a given case or where the statute requires. But this cannot be in a case where allegation and charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. What enquiry is to be made when one admits violations? When she admitted she did not join M. Phil Course, she did not report back to her duty which is against her condition of leave and contrary to her affidavit which is the charge, what enquiry was to be made? In a case where the facts are almost admitted, the case reveals itself and is apparent on the fact of the record, and in spite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming as in the present case it would not be a fit case to interfere with the termination order.” 13. The petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 16.2.86 to 18.2.86, 25.2.86 to 26.2.86, 8.3.86,11.3.86 to 12.3.86, 25.3.86 to 29.3.86, 11.5.86 to 13.5.86, 17.5.86 to 19.5.86, 21.5.86, 27.5.86 to 28.5.86,30.5.86, 31.5.86, 3.6.86 to 4.6.86,8.6.86 to 9.6.86, 25.7.86 to 29.7.86, 24.8.86 to 31.8.86, 1.9.86 to 3.9.86, 8.9.86 to 30.9.86. It is not disputed that the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate for his ailment. It is also not the case of the petitioner that for this period he has applied for leave in a proper manner. It is not disputed that the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate for his ailment. It is also not the case of the petitioner that for this period he has applied for leave in a proper manner. On the contrary he has admitted before the enquiry officer that he used to send his application through post after availing the leave. Thus this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Dharmarathmakara (supra). 14. The petitioner has further placed reliance in the case of East India Hotels versus Their Workman and others reported in A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court page 696. The petitioner cannot take help from the authority. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when a proper inquiry has been held by an employer, and the findings of misconduct has support from the evidence adduced at the said inquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgement over the decision of the employer as an appellate body. The interference with the decision of the employer will be justified only when the inquiry is unfair or the findings arrived at the enquiry are perverse or have no basis in the evidence or the management is guilty of victimization, unfair labour practise or mala fide or the punishment is harsh and oppressive. 15. In the present case the inquiry cannot be held to be unfair as full opportunity was given to the petitioner nor the findings arrived at in the inquiry are perverse because the findings are based on evidence. Further there is no case of victimization. Tribunal after perusal of the record, the inquiry report and the order passed by the disciplinary authority has rightly held that the petitioner is a burden on the department. 16. He has further placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Management of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. Bangalore versus Mohmmed Ushman and another reported in A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court page 321. In the aforesaid case the management has terminated the services of respondent and the Labour Court in exercise of the power conferred upon it by section - 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act reduced the punishment of termination of service and in its place imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years. In the aforesaid case the management has terminated the services of respondent and the Labour Court in exercise of the power conferred upon it by section - 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act reduced the punishment of termination of service and in its place imposed the punishment of stoppage of increments for two years. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court has exercised its power U/S ll-A after evaluatln9 the gravity of misconduct and finding that the punishment is disproportionately heavy in relation to misconduct . 17. In the present case the Labour Court after evaluating the gravity of misconduct has held that the punishment awarded to the petitioner by the employer is absolutely legal. 18. The petitioner has further placed reliance in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta versus Inquiry Officer Allahabad Bank and others reported in A.I.R. 2003 Supreme Court page 1377. In para-11 of the aforesaid judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the background or as has been stated above, one thing is clear that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can direct re-consideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicates the punishment to be awarded. In the present case it is not the case of the petitioner that the relevant factors which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment are not taken note of. In the aforesaid case the bank officer was removed from service on account of certain procedural irregularities. There was no illegality or misconduct by delinquent officer in the long past service except the charges in question. It was a case of procedural irregularities, whereas the present case is a gross dereliction in the duty, the petitioner remained absent at number of times from duty unauthorisedly, for which he was warned time and again, even then he did not improve himself and the employer had no option except to terminate him from service after a proper enquiry. 19. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Ka Kittu and others reported in 2001 (88) F.L.R. page 244 has held that the report of enquiry officer cannot be reviewed by Tribunal if there are relevant materials on records and the findings of inquiry officer are based on said material facts. In the present case the findings of inquiry officer are based on material facts which were before him and the Tribunal has rightly did not interfere with the findings of disciplinary authority. 20. Seeing the charges against the petitioner, it could not be said that the punishment awarded to the petitioner, was in any way shocking disproportionate to the nature of the charge found proved against him and as such there is no occasion to interfere with the award of punishment by the employer and affirmed by the Labour Court. For the reasons recorded, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.