Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below in his claim for declaration that the order dated January 12,1995 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Majitha dismissing him from service was illegal,arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 2. The plaintiff also challenged the appellate order passed by the Inspector general of Police whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed. 3. The facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiff had absented himself from duty for a period of 40 days. On account of the aforesaid absence, a departmental enquiry was held against the plaintiff. In the departmental enquiry the charge against the plaintiff was found to be proved. On the basis of the said report submitted by the Inquiry officer, the competent authority i. e. the Senior Superintendent of police passed an order of punishment dismissing the plaintiff from service and holding that the plaintiff was guilty of gravest act of misconduct. The appeal filed by the plaintiff also failed before the Inspector General of Police. 4. Both the Courts have concurrently found it as a fact that the plaintiff had absented from duty and further that the regular enquiry proceeding had been held against him. The aforesaid inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and by following a due procedure in accordance with rules, applicable to the plaintiff. The punishment order had been passed by the competent authority following the due procedure. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first appellate Court. 5. It is well settled that the civil court cannot sit in appeal over the inquiry proceedings or the order of punishment passed by the competent authority. 6. Shri Arun Abrol, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has, however, argued that the order of punishment dismissing the plaintiff from service was very harsh. However, I find myself unable to agree with the aforesaid contention. It is well settled that absence from duty by a person who is a member of the disciplined force is a gravest act of misconduct. The civil court cannot sit in judgment over the quantum of punishment awarded by the punishing authority. 7. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. The civil court cannot sit in judgment over the quantum of punishment awarded by the punishing authority. 7. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law,arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.