MANJU GOEL, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1/4/2002 passed by respondent No. 2, the General Manager of Ashoka Hotel, terminating the petitioner from the service of respondent No. 2. The order of 1/4/2002 under challenge gives the following facts: the petitioner Vijay Pal was issued a charge-sheet on 13/6/2001 for absenting from duties unauthorizedly for 129 days during the year 2000. An enquiry was conducted by Mr. S. Paul, Enquiry Officer. On receipt of a copy of the enquiry report notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why his service should not be terminated. Shri Arun George, general Manager (A) of respondent No. 2 agreed with the finding of the enquiry Officer and held that the charges levelled against Vijay pal, the petitioner, to have been conclusively proved in the enquiry. He found no substance in the reply of the petitioner dated 31/1/2002. Finding that the charge amounted to grave misconduct and taking into consideration all extenuating and aggravating factors, he imposed the punishment of termination of services of the petitioner with immediate effect. ( 2 ) THIS order was challenged on various grounds. When the petition came up for hearing on 9. 9. 2003 the ground that was found to have any substance was that similarly placed employees with even larger numbers of absence from duties were awarded only minor punishment like stop Page of one increment or two while the petitioner was visited with the extreme penalty of removal from service. On 9. 9. 2003 this court passed the following order: "cw 5796/2003. Notice to the respondents limited to the allegation of discrimination as contended by petitioner at pages 39-40 of the paper-book, with regard to other similarly situated workmen, to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, on filing of process fee by regd. AD cover as well as by ordinary process, returnable on 22. 01. 2004. " ( 3 ) THIS being the scope of the writ petition, the only thing that has to be examined now is whether the order of termination from service suffers from the defect of discrimination. At pages 39-40 referred to in the above order, the petitioner has named certain employees and has given details of the number of days they had been absent and the punishment inflicted on them. The list is as under: Sr. At pages 39-40 referred to in the above order, the petitioner has named certain employees and has given details of the number of days they had been absent and the punishment inflicted on them. The list is as under: Sr. Name Days Punishment 1. Ashok Kumar (maintenance) 600 2 increment stopped 2. M/s. Bhugeshwar 65 5" 3. Mrs. Lajwanti 112 1" 4. Galwaries (LM) 115 2" 5. K. P. Natrajan 55 3" 6. Pritam Singh (Kitchen) 135 Warning" ( 4 ) THE respondent in its counter affidavit has given the details of the circumstances in which the other employees mentioned above were given lesser punishments. It is stated that the past record of the petitioner was not clean. There were two previous occasions when the petitioner was taken to task: (a) He was issued Fault and Guidance Slips dated 17. 5. 1978. (b) He was awarded the punishment of stop Page of two annual increments with cumulative effect, vide orders dated 9. 2. 81 in the matter of charge sheet issued to him on 26. 3. 80 for wilful insubordination and carry on his private business. " ( 5 ) AS regards other employees it is stated that their past records were clean except for Mr. K. P. Natrajan who was punished with stop Page of three increments with cumulative effect for drunkenness vide an order dated 22. 6. 2001. He had also received fault and guidance slips. For the absence of 135 days K. P. Natrajan was awarded punishment of stop Page of three annual increments with cumulative effect. ( 6 ) THE respondent has filed a list of 15 employees whose services were terminated in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 for the misconduct or absentism of lesser number of days. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner's case when compared with these 15 employees does not call for any interference from this court. ( 7 ) IN the first place even if the offence of the petitioner and that of mr. K. P. Natrajan are compared it is difficult to say that the misconduct of the Mr. Natrajan was graver. Mr. Natrajan was earlier warned twice but actually punished only once for drunkenness. From what is produced on the record neither the extent of drunkenness of Mr. K. P. Natrajan are compared it is difficult to say that the misconduct of the Mr. Natrajan was graver. Mr. Natrajan was earlier warned twice but actually punished only once for drunkenness. From what is produced on the record neither the extent of drunkenness of Mr. K. P. Natrajan in his previous misconduct nor the extent of willful disobedience in the petitioner's previous misconduct or the extent of prejudice caused to the respondent by the petitioner's private business can be assessed. Nor can the two be compared. The antecedents being different for the two employees, their punishment for the subsequent offence can be different. ( 8 ) THE second point that arises for consideration is the strength of the ground taken by the petitioner. In Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of india Ltd. and Ors. , JT 1996 (11) SC 507: 1997 (3) SCC 371 the Supreme court held that even if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment, it cannot be a ground for interference. Therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Mr. K. P. Natrajan was awarded less punishment for similar offence, the petitioner cannot get any relief. ( 9 ) WHEN, then, does a court interfere in the punishment imposed by an employer. In Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial bank and Ors. v. P. C. Kakkar, JT 2003 (2) SC 78, the Supreme Court traced. the entire law on the subject and concluded as under: "11. The common thread running through in all these decision is that, the court should not interefere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury's case (supra) the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. " ( 10 ) IN this case the only factor that is under consideration is the quantum of punishment. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. " ( 10 ) IN this case the only factor that is under consideration is the quantum of punishment. Following the Supreme Court in the case of P. C. Kakkar (Supra), this court can interfere in the punishment imposed by the employer only if the punishment is so disproportionate to the offence that it shocks the conscience of the court. The petitioner himself does not say that the punishment given to him is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court. Nor can it be said so, keeping in view the facts of the case. An employer is not bound to bear with absentism and in case he decides to dispense with the services of an employee who has remained absent for more than 129 days without leave the employer cannot be accused of having imposed a punishment which is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. ( 11 ) THE question whether unauthorized absence could entail the punishment of dismissal was dealt by the Supreme Court in the case of delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574 . In that case the workmen had been absent without leave for periods ranging between 92 days to 294 days. The Supreme Court observed that when an employee absents himself from duties without sanctioned leave the authority can on the basis of record come to a conclusion about the employee being habitually negligent in duties and exhibiting lack of interest in the employer's work. It was held in that case that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to accord approval to the order of dismissal/removal passed by the employer. ( 12 ) THERE is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.