JUDGMENT Abhay M. Naik, J. The petitioner as Constable with Registration No. 509, was posted at Indore, when he was charge-sheeted vide Annx.A/1, which contained charges to the following effect: (i) Petitioner was a habitual absentee. He was awarded one major and 17 minor punishments during the tenure of 12 years and 10 months. He did not make any improvement in spite of the aforesaid punishment. (ii) Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 9 days in the month of April, 1992, 11 days in the month of May, 1992, 25 days in the month of June, 1992, 15 days in the month of July, 1992, 3 days in the month of August, 1992, 23 days in the month of September, 1992. (iii) Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for 10 days in the month of February, 1993, 12 days in the month of March, 1993, 4 days in the month of April, 1993, 22 days in the month of May, 1993, 8 days in the month of June, 1993 and from 16-10-1993 to 10-12-1993 on sick rest. The charge-sheet was issued by the Superintendent of Police (Rail) Jabalpur and was served on the petitioner through the Superintendent of Police Indore on 15-8-1995. Petitioner was asked to submit his reply within ten days from the date of receipt of show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20-8-1995 to the Superintendent of Police, Indore, which obviously was liable to be forwarded to the authority issuing the show cause notice on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet. Reply is contained in Annx.A/2. A departmental enquiry was held pursuant to the charge-sheet and a final order was passed on 31-8-1995 by the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jabalpur, vide Annx.A/3, imposing thereby the punishment of dismissal from service. It has been mentioned in the last paragraph of the order of dismissal that the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner but no reply was timely submitted by him- The departmental enquiry was, thus, concluded without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner vide Annx.A/2. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bhopal vide Annx.A/5. A mercy petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police which has been allowed in part vide Annx.A/7 and the punishment of dismissal from service has been converted into compulsory retirement. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bhopal vide Annx.A/5. A mercy petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police which has been allowed in part vide Annx.A/7 and the punishment of dismissal from service has been converted into compulsory retirement. The representation made by the petitioner for giving reappointment has been rejected vide order dated 28-1-2000 contained in Annx.A/8. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a victim of gas tragedy at Bhopal which occurred in the year 1984. The petitioner was sufferer of gas leakage and consequently was unable to attend the parade. He was also referred by the department for medical examination. After due examination by the District Medical Board, he was found to be a sufferer of gas leakage at Bhopal and was advised Jo undertake light duty. This was so informed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer to the Superintendent of Police (Rail) Jabalpur, vide memo dated 22-2-1992. This certificate was submitted by the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police which forms part of mercy appeal contained in AnnEx. A/6. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was advised light duty and was unable to undertake the daily parade. It is contended by the Learned Counsel that the inability of the petitioner to attend the parade was beyond his control and no punishment should have been imposed on account of the same. He, however, contended that the petitioner did not commit any default in discharge of regular duties. He further submitted that the impugned orders are passed without consideration of the reply and the same, therefore, stand vitiated in the eye of law. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment for the period of absence has already been awarded from time to time and for the same, the petitioner cannot be again punished. He finally submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is also not sustainable in law, having been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner contained in Annx.A/2 and further without considering the fact that the petitioner was a gas victim. Shri V. P. Nema, learned Govt. Advocate, supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the petition. He finally submitted that the order of compulsory retirement is also not sustainable in law, having been passed without considering the reply of the petitioner contained in Annx.A/2 and further without considering the fact that the petitioner was a gas victim. Shri V. P. Nema, learned Govt. Advocate, supported the impugned orders and prays for dismissal of the petition. Though he admitted that the reply was not considered by the disciplinary authority, it is contended by him that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner since the punishment of dismissal from service has already been converted into compulsory retirement. Considered the submissions and perused the record. Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste employee of a lower strata who is admittedly a victim of Bhopal Gas Disaster and was advised light duties as revealed in the medical certificate issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jabalpur, bearing No. Gen. Med./92/453 dated 22-2-1992, placed at page No. 32 of the petition. He has been charge sheeted for unauthroised absence. Contention of Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on account of being victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy, he failed to attend the parade. There is no specific allegation in the charge-sheet that he absented from the place of posting. It is true that parade is also included in the duties but the absence from the parade that, too, of an employee who is a gas victim, cannot be treated with seriousness with which the absentism from the place of posting is treated. Moreover, there is no allegation against the petitioner that he remained absent from duty prior to the said Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Specific allegations contained in charge No. 2 and 3 relate to the post period after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Moreover, the petitioner was posted at Indore when he was charge-sheeted vide Annexure A-l. The charge-sheet was serviced upon the petitioner through Superintendent of Police, Indore on 15-8-1995 and the petitioner was asked to submit his reply within 10 days from the date of receipt. Petitioner submitted his reply on 21st August, 1995 to the Superintendent of Police, Indore, who obviously was liable to forward it timely to the authority who issued the show cause notice on the basis of the aforesaid charges. This reply seems to have not been forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority within time. Petitioner submitted his reply on 21st August, 1995 to the Superintendent of Police, Indore, who obviously was liable to forward it timely to the authority who issued the show cause notice on the basis of the aforesaid charges. This reply seems to have not been forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority within time. This is clearly revealed in the impugned order Annexure A-3, where Superintendent of Police (Rail) Jabalpur has clearly mentioned that had the reply of the petitioner been received in lime, the same would have been definitely taken into consideration before taking a decision. Thus, it is clear that the reply to show cause notice, contained in Annexure A-2, was not taken into consideration and the impugned order contained in Annexure A-3 has been passed without considering the reply. It defeats the very purpose of show cause notice. It is true that the petitioner has submitted a reply to show cause to he office of the Superintendent of Police, Indore, since show cause notice contained in Annexure A-l was served through him. The petitioner who received the show cause notice through Superintendent of Police, Indore was quite justified in submitting his reply to the same authority for being forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jabalpur. The charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 15-8-1995, requiring thereby the petitioner to submit his reply within 10 days. The reply contained in Annexure A-2 was addressed to the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jabalpur and the same was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Indore on 20th August, 1995. Thus, the reply was submitted well within the period of 10 days time which was stipulated in the show cause notice contained in Annexure A-1. Again in the appellate order it has been clearly mentioned that reply to the show cause notice was not received and the order dated 31-8-1995 (i.e. Annexure A-3) was issued imposing thereby punishment of dismissal from service. In this order also the consideration of reply to show cause notice is not reflected at all. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the reply to the show cause notice has not been considered at all by the disciplinary authority. No doubt, absentism from duty may be taken to be a serious misconduct. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the reply to the show cause notice has not been considered at all by the disciplinary authority. No doubt, absentism from duty may be taken to be a serious misconduct. However, in the present case the petitioner has categorically mentioned that he absented merely from the parade. The petitioner has already been found to be a victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy and has been advised light duty. This human aspect was liable to be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner absented himself from his working place. Had he been assigned some light duty pursuant to the medical certificate, perhaps this unfortunate situation might not have arisen. Although, non-consideration of reply does not appear to have a bearing on the finding of enquiry, it certainly has a bearing on the quantum of punishment. The petitioner having been found to be a victim of Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the punishment of compulsory retirement to such an employee is quite harsh and disproportionate. Looking to the condition of the petitioner, the charges are not found to be of grave nature and of a magnitude warranting punishment of compulsory retirement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of compulsory retirement is shockingly disproportionate and the purpose of departmental enquiry could have been served even with a relatively minor punishment in comparison to that of compulsory retirement. I derive strength from the following paragraph of the Apex Court's decision in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, : Disciplinary authority, and on appeals, Appellate Authority are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment; imposed by the 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 reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. In the result the petition is allowed in part. In the result the petition is allowed in part. Annexures A-3 and A-5 are quashed to the extent of quantum of punishment. Respondent No. 3 is directed to take a fresh decision in the matter after considering the reply to the show cause notice contained in Annexure A-2, for the purpose of imposing a punishment minor in comparison to the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner shall not be entitled to back wages for the intervening period. No order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed