Petitioner stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.2.2000 passed by Managing Director of respondent-Bank arising out of two charge sheets dated 5.6.1996 and 13.1.1997 served upon the petitioner. Charges in both the charge sheets have been inquired into. Petitioner has challenged impugned order of his dismissal. Allegations contained in the writ petition are summarized hereunder: Petitioner came to be appointed as Clerk in November 1972 in Reserve Bank of India and on establishment of respondent-bank. Petitioner opted for service of NABARD and came to be posted as Assistant Development Officer on 24.5.1983 at New Delhi. Later on, he was transferred to Ahmedabad as Grade-A Officer where he remained upto March 1993 and thereafter, transferred to Jammu. On being posted at Ahmedabad, an enquiry was conducted against him in respect to alleged misconduct for which he was awarded punishment of reprimand on 29.8.1996. An appeal preferred against order of reprimand was disallowed being barred by time. While serving at Jammu, petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 5.6.1996 where under it was alleged that he was deputed as member of inspection team for inspection of Jammu District Co-operative Bank Ltd from 21.8.1995 to 15.9.1995. Petitioner abruptly left the inspection duty midway without permission of the Principal Inspecting Officer and unauthorizedly absented from the duty. While leaving inspection, petitioner wrote a letter dated 12.9.1995 making certain allegations against the Principal Inspecting Officer. It is stated in the charge sheet that petitioner could not substantiate allegation. Accordingly, he was charged for violation of Rules 26 and 38 of the NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982 for abruptly leaving the inspection duty without permission and unauthorized absence from duty. Petitioner replied to the charge sheet. Petitioner claims to have made certain representations asking for supply of copy of NABARD (Staff) Rules to enable him to understand the provisions thereof. Enquiry Officer proceeded exparte and submitted his report on 22.3.1997. It is alleged that inquiry is violative of principles of nature justice as also rules governing such enquiry. Petitioner was not provided any opportunity to explain his position and no notice of proposed punished was given to him. Further case of petitioner is while said enquiry was pending, petitioner sat on indefinite dharana on 19.11.1996 to press his demand for supply of copy of the rules for which he was suspended. Another charge sheet dated 13.1.1997 came to be served upon him. Further case of petitioner is while said enquiry was pending, petitioner sat on indefinite dharana on 19.11.1996 to press his demand for supply of copy of the rules for which he was suspended. Another charge sheet dated 13.1.1997 came to be served upon him. He also did not submit any reply allegedly in absence of copy of the rules and wrote certain letters to the authorities. It is stated in the petition that petitioner requested higher officials for referring the enquiry to some independent agency as the higher officials of the bank were involved with regard to the charge sheet and he did not expect true justice at the hands of the officials who were entrusted the job of conducting enquiry and who were also subordinate to the persons against whom petitioner had leveled allegations but the said demand of the petitioner was never accepted by the respondent-bank and they continued with their illegal designs. It is stated that during enquiry he was not allowed to summon witnesses nor any direction was issued for production of documents sought by the petitioner. Petitioner earlier approached this court in SWP No: 1631/1998 which came to be decided vide judgment/order dated 10.8.1999 whereby respondents were directed to pass a final order within a period of six months from today. If for any practical reason it is not possible to pass a final order respondent-authorities would either seek extension of time or would revoke order of suspension. On the basis of both enquires initiated against him, competent authority has passed dismissal order. In the detailed counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that during review of performance for the year 31.3.1993, petitioners performance was not satisfactory and adverse remarks were communicated to him. He was also provided counseling to which he did not respond. It is further stated that enquiry was held in respect to incident of year 1993 and punishment of reprimand was imposed upon him. Regarding charge sheet dated 5.6.1996, it is stated that same was served and he did not reply. An inquiry was initiated. Petitioner was repeatedly advised by Enquiry Officer to attend enquiry proceedings. He intentionally and willfully avoided to participate. After giving full opportunity to petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report to the competent authority. Regarding charge sheet dated 5.6.1996, it is stated that same was served and he did not reply. An inquiry was initiated. Petitioner was repeatedly advised by Enquiry Officer to attend enquiry proceedings. He intentionally and willfully avoided to participate. After giving full opportunity to petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report to the competent authority. It is further alleged that petitioner sat on Dharna in the bank premises and caused obstructions and disrupted the normal functioning of the bank and also used derogatory and foul language/remarks against the management and harassed the customers. Bank authorities were compelled to approach the District Administration and accordingly he was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.11.1996. This happen during the pendency of enquiry in respect to charge sheet dated 5.6.1996. Final order was deferred. Fresh charge sheet dated 13.2.1997 was served upon the petitioner for sitting on unauthorized Dharana and using posters and banners in front of office premises for which he was placed under suspension. Enquiry was adjourned because of the fact he did not turn up. There were 56 sittings. During enquiry petitioner had submitted list for summoning Sh. P.Kotiah, the then Chairman, NABARD, Shri S. Subramaniam, the then General Manager, NABARD and Sh. C.M. Kamdar, the then General Manager NABARD. Enquiry Officer considered these witnesses to be irrelevant because they were not connected with the charge. It is further stated that witnesses recorded on behalf of management are Sh. R.L.Raina, Assistant General Manager, Smt S.S.Saigal, Assistant General Manager and Shri Y.P Aggarwal, Manager and these witnesses were not cross examined by him. There was no question of re-summoning of the witnesses which was dis-allowed as no ground was shown by the petitioner. In the rejoinder filed, petitioner has reiterated the stand taken in the writ petition and stated that he was compelled to resort to Dharana because of non supply of copy of rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged impugned order on the ground that copy of the rule was not provided to him. Enquiry was exparte and hence violation of principles of natural justice and punishment is dis-proporinate as he was absent only for one day. Dharana for a day cannot constitute misconduct which may invite punishment of dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged impugned order on the ground that copy of the rule was not provided to him. Enquiry was exparte and hence violation of principles of natural justice and punishment is dis-proporinate as he was absent only for one day. Dharana for a day cannot constitute misconduct which may invite punishment of dismissal. Learned counsel for the respondents while rebutting the contention of the petitioner has referred to communication dated 5.11.1993 addressed to petitioner (Annexure-R/1) whereby petitioner was communicated that copy of NABARD (Staff ) Rules is available for his perusal with Staff Section and Jammu Unit of NBOA. He may peruse the same for reply of charge sheet. This document contain endorsement by the petitioner that he has received copy of the rules. It bears his signature. It is accordingly contended that rules are available with him. Regarding misconduct of the petitioner, it is stated that he remained absent unauthorizedly and withdrew from the inspection without permission of Principal Inspecting Officer and also leveled false allegations of corruption against him which were unsubstantiated. It is stated that petitioner sat on indefinite Dharana not only for non supply of copy of rules but only to malign the management. With a view to establish misconduct he has referred to Annexure-R/2 which contain photographs of petitioner sitting on Dharana with the posters " Indefinite Dharana against corruption and misuse of power." It also contain another poster "Remove the Chairman and Order a CBI Probe into his misdeeds and misuse of power". It is further stated that petitioner resorted to indefinite Dharana in the bank premises and created nuisance and caused obstruction in the functioning of bank and inconvenience to the customers. He was removed by local administration with police assistance. Regarding holding of enquiry, he has referred to enquiry report placed on record indicating that various opportunities were given to him but he failed to respond and delayed the enquiry proceedings deliberately. He was provided full opportunity to defend himself but he did not avail the same. In the enquiry report in respect to charge sheet dated 5.6.1996, Enquiry Officer has recorded as under: "The oral enquiry was fixed to commence on 18 September 1996 at 11.00 A.M in the office premises of NABARD Jammu and the CSE was duly served a notice on 31.8.1996. In the enquiry report in respect to charge sheet dated 5.6.1996, Enquiry Officer has recorded as under: "The oral enquiry was fixed to commence on 18 September 1996 at 11.00 A.M in the office premises of NABARD Jammu and the CSE was duly served a notice on 31.8.1996. The CSE was also advised that in case he wished to be defended by an officer of the bank, he should furnish the name of such officer. However, CSE neither presented himself for the enquiry nor did he appoint any defence representative. The enquiry was adjourned and subsequently the CSE was given two more opportunities to present himself for defending his case on 5 October 1996 and 22 January 1997. Although the notices for oral enquiry were duly served on him, he did not attend the enquiry. Thereafter the CSF was finally advised by me vide notice dated 22 January 1997 (received by CSE on 24 January 1997 against his acknowledgment) that he was provided with last and final opportunity for attending the enquiry on 12 February 1997 and in case he did not attend the same, the enquiry would be held ex-parte without any further notice to him. In response to the notice of enquiry dated 22 January 1997, the CSE addressed a letter dated 31 January 1997 to the undersigned stating that he had nothing more to add to what had already been brought on record on the subject through his various letters. However, he did not present himself for the oral enquiry on the appointed date, time and venue. The presenting Officer pleaded that since the CSE had failed to present himself on all the four occasions despite receiving notices well in advance, the enquiry be held exparte. Hence, the undersigned decided to hold the exparte enquiry on the same date after allowing sufficient time." Regarding Dharana resorted to by the petitioner, it is stated that it was not to press his demand for supply of copy of rule which has already been supplied to him. It was resorted to only to humiliate the management by asking for dismissal of senior officials on baseless allegations. With a view to establish the conduct of the petitioner, reference is made to letter dated 31.10.1996 filed by the petitioner as Annexure-D with the writ petition. It was resorted to only to humiliate the management by asking for dismissal of senior officials on baseless allegations. With a view to establish the conduct of the petitioner, reference is made to letter dated 31.10.1996 filed by the petitioner as Annexure-D with the writ petition. Contents of this letter are noticed hereunder: "VICTIMISATION FOR EXPOSING CORRUPTION MANIPULATIONS CRIMINAL ACTIONS AND DEROGATORY REMARKS AGAINST FORMER PRIME MINISTER-LATE SHRI RAJIV GANDHI. In continuation of my letters dated 8 May 1996 and 23 October 1996 on the captioned subject, I regret to submit that no action seems to have been taken by the bank to redress my grievances. I , therefore, feel constrained to sit on INDEFINITE DHARNA on 19 November 1996, the birth anniversary of the former Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi who dedicated NABARD to the nation for the uplift of the poor and down trodden to seek amongst others:- 1. Dismissal of Shri. S.Subranamian, then DGM, Ahmedabad R.O for corruption, manipulations, criminal misconduct and for passing derogatory and scornful remarks against late. Shri Rajiv Gandhi on the fateful day of his tragic death: 2. A C.B.I probe into my victimization, harassment and mental torture by the top brass of the bank at the behest of Sh. Suberamanian; 3. A copy of NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982, as amended upto date to enable me to initiate legal proceedings against Shri. P.Kotaiah, the Chairman and Sh. S.Subramanian, then GDM of Ahmedabad R.O : and others; 4. To undo the injustice done to me by the Bank Management. Incidentally, I may mention that if something untoward happens and for the dire consequences the bank management would be solely responsible." As far question of violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, petitioner himself placed on record copy of letter dated 13.2.1997 whereby petitioner was asked to submit reply to the charge sheet served upon him on 13.1.1997. Petitioner replied to this vide communication dated 22.2.1997 asking for supply of copy of the rules and also asked for action against higher officials. Petitioner however, submitted a detail representation against findings and report of the enquiry officer vide his letter dated 19.11.1999. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that petitioner had a remedy of preferring an appeal under Rule 49 of NABARD (Staff) Rules, however, he has not availed of the same and approached this court through the medium of present petition. Petitioner however, submitted a detail representation against findings and report of the enquiry officer vide his letter dated 19.11.1999. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that petitioner had a remedy of preferring an appeal under Rule 49 of NABARD (Staff) Rules, however, he has not availed of the same and approached this court through the medium of present petition. He having not availed alternate remedy of appeal and approached this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India which remedy is not warranted. Regarding the charge and misconduct, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Rules 26, 28, 34,38 and 47. Under rule 26, an employee is required to abide all the rules and orders of the superiors. Under rule 28, every employee is required to serve the bank honestly and faithfully and promote the interest of the Bank. Rule 34 prohibits an employee from making any statement through media or publish document or communication through press which has the effect of disparaging Bank or its management or bringing the same into disrepute. Similarly Rule 38 deal with absence from duty without prior permission of the Competent Authority. As for rule 47 is concerned, it prescribe penalities to be imposed on an employee who commits breach of the Rules or is guilty of misconduct. Following penalities are prescribed under this rule:- (a) reprimand (b) delay or stoppage of increment or promotion; (c) degradation to a lower post or grade or to a lower stage in his incremental scale; (d) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the National Bank by the employee: (e) Dismissal Contention of the petitioner that he was not provided with copy of rules, is falsified from the record which indicate that petitioner has received copy of rules on 5.11.1993 and therefore, his plea that he cannot defend himself unless copy of the rules is provided appears to be incorrect. From the enquiry report, it is also evident that various opportunities were provided to the petitioner to associate with the enquiry and defend himself, he did not avail the same for no valid reason. I do not find that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. Authorities could not have compelled him to come forward and associate with enquiry and defend himself. In the present case sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner. I do not find that there has been any violation of principles of natural justice. Authorities could not have compelled him to come forward and associate with enquiry and defend himself. In the present case sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner. No fault can be found with the enquiry. It is lastly urged on behalf of the petitioner to examine nature and quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner. Though misconduct of the petitioner is established and this court cannot sit as a court of appeal over the enquiry proceedings as also order of the disciplinary authority. However, court can examine whether the punishment awarded is commensurate to the charge proved. In the present case punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner on two counts; (i) absent for a day (ii) sitting on Dharna in the bank premises and making remarks/allegations against the management and higher officials. Though these allegations stand proved against him, however, under Rule 47, punishment ranging from reprimand to dismissal can be imposed for the misconduct. Above rule do not indicate any circumstance that may warrant harsher punishment or other punishment provided under the rule. Nature of misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not such as it may invite maximum punishment. In my view, such harsher punishment like removal from service is not warranted. In both the enquiries petitioner was charged for unauthorized absence for one day and sitting on Dharna (one day) respectively. In 2nd enquiry, he was also accused of making insinuation against the management. Though petitioner made baseless and unsubstantiated allegations against the management but such misconduct cannot be said to be so serious to call for his dismissal from service. Apex Court in case of Ram Avtar Singh v. State Public Service Tribunal & Ors., (AIR 1999 SC 1542) has observed the dismissal of constable who was absent for one day as under: "4. In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that he remained absent for one day on hunger strike for opposing his transfer it could not have been said that it required the punishment of dismissal from service. In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that he remained absent for one day on hunger strike for opposing his transfer it could not have been said that it required the punishment of dismissal from service. Consequently, in our view, interest of justice will be served if the order of dismissal is set aside and instead the appellant is ordered to be reinstated in service with only 50 per cent of backwages as we are told since 1991 till date he is out of job. The appellant shall also file a written apology for what he had done on the fateful day and must undertake to be transferred to any place to which he is ordered to be transferred by the competent authority. The appellant shall also be warned to behave in a more disciplined manner in furture. The aforesaid order of punishment, in our view meets the ends of justice. The appellant shall report to the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur under whom he was working prior to his dismissal and thereafter he will be subjected to any further orders of transfer, if any. The appellant will be reinstated with continuity of service and with all other consequential benefits. 50% backwages shall be paid to the appellant in six weeks of his reporting from duty. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extend. No costs." In another case of Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer & Ors (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 480, Apex Court, held as under: "11. In the background of what 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 reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in the long past service indicating either irregularity or misconduct of the appellant except the charges which were the subject matter of his removal from service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above is that though small advances may have become irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had misappropriated any money or had committed any act of fraud. The stand of the appellant as indicated above is that though small advances may have become irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had misappropriated any money or had committed any act of fraud. If any loss has been caused to the Bank (which he quantifies at about Rs 46,000) that can be recovered from the appellant. As the reading of the various articles of charges go to show, at the most there is some procedural irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service." From the facts on record and nature of accusation against the petitioner, I am of the considered view that punishment of dismissal from service is not warranted. In view of the above, impugned order is set aside and competent authority is directed to reconsider question of imposition of punishment upon the petitioner after giving him opportunity of being heard and award such lesser punishment as may be considered commensurate to his misconduct noticed above. Let appropriate order be passed within four months. This petition is allowed partially. After reconsidering the punishment, period of suspension be also decided. However, petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages for the period he remained out of service on account of dismissal order.