Judgment R.R. Prasad, J.-This application is directed against the order passed by Senior Commandant, CISF, CCL Unit, Kargali, respondent no. 2 on 4.9.2002 as contained in Annexure-3 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from the service. The appellate order as well as order passed in revision as contained in Annexures-4 and 5 of the writ application upholding the order of dismissal have also been sought to be quashed. Alternatively it has also been prayed to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire voluntarily in case petitioner fails to make out a case of reinstatement as order of termination is disproportionate to minor charge of being absent from the duty unauthorizedly. 2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner while working as Havildar, CISF, CCL Unit Kargali, was granted casual leave for five days with effect from 12.12.2001 to 23.12.2001 but on 24.12.2001 he did not resume his duty. Therefore, he was called upon to resume his duty through several notices but the petitioner never made any response and, therefore, departmental proceeding was initiated wherein charges were framed which read as follows:- i. Since 24.12.2001 you have been over-staying without any permission from the competent authority and thereby being member of the disciplined force, it is an act of indiscipline, misconduct and lack of interest in discharging the duties. ii. You had earlier over-stayed without any permission for about 156 days for which you had earlier been punished but in spite of that, you did not mend your ways and this fact may take into account if you are found guilty. 3. The memorandum of charge was sent to native place of the petitioner under registered post with a direction to submit his written reply but he refused to receive the same. However, thereafter memorandum of charge was served upon the petitioner through special messenger on 24.4.2002 but even then, he did not submit his reply. Therefore, Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer, who sent several letters to the petitioner asking him to attend the enquiry but the petitioner did not pay any heed to it. The Enquiry Officer then left with no option conducted enquiry ex parte and submitted his enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty for both the charges. Thereafter enquiry report alongwith statement of all the witnesses was sent to the petitioner through special messenger with a direction to file his representation. The Enquiry Officer then left with no option conducted enquiry ex parte and submitted his enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty for both the charges. Thereafter enquiry report alongwith statement of all the witnesses was sent to the petitioner through special messenger with a direction to file his representation. Upon it, representation was filed before the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the representation, passed the order as contained in order no. 1277 dated 4.9.2002 (Annexure-3) whereby petitioner was dismissed from service. 4. An appeal preferred against the order of dismissal and also revision preferred against the appellate order was rejected. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, this writ application has been filed. 6. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner never absented himself intentionally from the duty, rather absence was on account of the fact that he was suffering from Malaria and also from Jaundice, for which he was undergoing treatment and under that circumstances, punishment of dismissal is too harsh and the same is shockingly disproportionate to the charge and, therefore, the authority should have allowed the petitioner to go for voluntarily retirement instead of dismissing the petitioner from service. 7. learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Bhagwan lal Arya vs. Cann. of Police, Delhi [(2004)2 AIR SCW 2288] holding therein that absence on medical ground without permission is not such a grave which may lead to dismissal. 8. learned counsel also referred to a decision rendered in a case of Employer in relation to Management of Lohapatti Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L. VS. The Presiding Officer and Another [ (2002)3 JCR 422 (Jhr.) [: 2005(2) JLJR 131 ] holding therein that there can be unauthorized absence from duty amounting to misconduct but all the unauthorized absence from duty may not amount to misconduct. 9. The Presiding Officer and Another [ (2002)3 JCR 422 (Jhr.) [: 2005(2) JLJR 131 ] holding therein that there can be unauthorized absence from duty amounting to misconduct but all the unauthorized absence from duty may not amount to misconduct. 9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that despite several opportunities being extended to the petitioner to join his duty after the period of leave was over, he did not respond to it nor did he inform about the reason for overstay and thereafter the petitioner even refused to receive the memorandum of charge and as such, he acted in the manner of an unbecoming member of a disciplined Armed Force of the Union and hence, when Disciplinary Authority has found the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him, this Court would not like to interfere with the quantum of punishment, keeping in view that the petitioner is a member of a disciplined Armed Force and is never expected to act in the manner the petitioner has acted. 10. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that High Court or other Tribunal in exercise of power of judicial review would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment. In this respect, learned counsel has referred to decisions rendered in a case of North-Eastern Karnataka RT Corporation vs. Ashappa [(2006)5 SCC137] and State of U.P VS. Sheo Shankar Lal Shrivastava and Others [ (2006)3 SCC 276 ]. 11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, it does appear that the petitioner on being granted casual leave only for five days when overstayed, was called upon to resume his duty to which the petitioner never made any response nor the petitioner seems to have informed the authority about the reason of his absence and that led to initiation of the departmental proceeding for the charges as aforesaid and when the memorandum of charge was sent to the petitioner for his service, the petitioner refused to acknowledge it. Thereupon, the enquiry was taken ex parte and the Enquiry Officer found both the charges proved and when the enquiry report alongwith other materials were sent to the petitioner for giving reply, the petitioner made representation whereby he tried to explain the situation under which he could not resume the duty but explanation was never found to be satisfactory and hence, Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the earlier conduct of the petitioner of overstaying and the misconduct for which the petitioner was found guilty, awarded punishment of dismissal. 12. However, the question which crops up is as to whether facts and circumstances are as such which warrant interference in the matter of punishment awarded on the ground of punishment being disproportionate to charge. 13. In this respect, reference of a case of V. Ramana vs. A.P. SRTC [ (2005)7 SCC 338 ] be made where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- " The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere 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 case 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 for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision." 14. The same principle has been reiterated in subsequent decision in the case of North-Eastern Karnataka RT Corporation vs. Ashappa (supra). 15. In the instant case, nothing was placed for assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority or even by appellate and reviewing authority that the orders passed by them either suffers from procedural impropriety or was illogical, So far principle of proportionalities is concerned it was submitted that the punishment awarded is never proportionate to charge for which petitioner was found guilty. It be noticed that the petitioner is a member of disciplined Armed Force of the Union and as such, misconduct for which the petitioner was found guilty cannot be taken to be lightly. It be noticed that the petitioner is a member of disciplined Armed Force of the Union and as such, misconduct for which the petitioner was found guilty cannot be taken to be lightly. Moreover, earlier instance of overstaying indicates about the lack of interest on the part of the petitioner in discharging the duty and under these circumstances, punishment of termination awarded against the petitioner never seems to be disproportionate. So far decision relied upon by the petitioner in a case of Employer in relation to Management of Lohapatti Colliery of M/s S.C.C.L vs. The Presiding Officer and Another (supra) is concerned, that never helps the petitioner as it has been held that there can be unauthorized absence from duty amounting to misconduct but all unauthorized absence from duty may not amount to misconduct as if a person is absent from duty without prior permission for the reason such as flood, illness, etc. it will not amount to misconduct. But here, in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority did find that the petitioner even being discharged from the hospital did not join the duty nor cared to inform about his absence in spite of the certificate being given by the Doctor that the petitioner is fit for resumption of duty. 16. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, this application is dismissed.