Judgment :- Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in P.R.102/HI(2)/2003 dated 310. 2003 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service and consequential order passed by the 1st Respondent in Rc.No.194/61788/APII(2)/2005 dated 07.06.2005 in Na.Ka.No.20058/C6/C22/1996 dated 16.03.2005 and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service. 2(i) Petitioner was appointed as Grade II Police Constable on 17.01.1986, and promoted as Grade I Police Constable in the year 1995. While he was serving in Jolarpet Police Station, Vellore District he was dealt with on a charge memo in P.R.No.102/03/u/r 3(b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, for dereliction of duty by absenting himself from 18.02.2003 to till 10.03.2003 for a period of 21 days and became a deserter. On report sent by Inspector of Police, Jolarpet, the Petitioner was treated as deserter as per rule 88(1) of P.S.O., vol.I (ii) In the desertion order Petitioner was directed to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Vellore District within 60 days from the date of his absence 18.02.2003. The Petitioner appeared before Superintendent of Police on 18.04.2003, with his representation to take him back for duty. Considering his request Petitioner was taken back for duty vide District order 820/2003(L2(1)/10303/03) dated 25.04.2003. (iii) For the offence of desertion committed by the writ petitioner charges were framed against the Petitioner and the charge memo was served on 07.08.2006. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupathur appointed as enquiry officer and he had conducted the oral enquiry and held that the charge as proved. Report of the enquiry officer was served on the writ petitioner on 010. 2003, calling upon him to submit his representation. Despite two reminders the Petitioner did not submit further representation. Agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" with effect from 011. 2003 by the order dated 30.10.2003. (iv) The writ petitioner did not prefer any appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vellore Range, within a period of 30 days against the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement". On expiry of the appeal time, Deputy Inspector General of Police by the order dater 28.01.2004, confirmed the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement". Later the Petitioner had preferred a grievance petition before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was forwarded to the 1st Respondent. On expiry of the appeal time, Deputy Inspector General of Police by the order dater 28.01.2004, confirmed the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement". Later the Petitioner had preferred a grievance petition before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was forwarded to the 1st Respondent. The Petitioner had also filed a mercy petition directly to Director General of Police with a request to reinstate him in service. Considering the same along with other connected records and observing that the Petitioner is a repeated offender, the 1st Respondent rejected the same by the impugned order dated 07.06.2005. The punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" is challenged in this writ petition. (v) Opposing the Petition, the Respondents have filed counter stating that sufficient reasonable opportunities were given to the Petitioner to defend in the enquiry proceedings and to further submit his representation and the disciplinary proceedings was held in accordance with Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (D&A) Rules, 1955 and in strict compliance with principle of natural justice and the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" is proportionately less. .3. Challenging the impugned order the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S. Ravi, has submitted that for delinquency of absence absenting for a period of 21 days punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" is disproportionate and excessive. Drawing the attention of the court to a circular memorandum of Director General of Police in Rc.No.243881/Ap.I(1)/90, dated 30.10.1990, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in the circular it has been clearly stated that after taking the delinquent for duty, imposing punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" is in violation of the circular. 4. The Learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. N. Senthil Kumar has submitted that despite opportunities given, the Petitioner has not preferred any appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who is the competent authority to impose punishment. Placing Reliance upon (2006 Writ L.R. 267), Union of India & 2 Others Vs. P.Gurunathan, the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that writ petitioner being a member of disciplinary force in which strict Discipline was required, and when the writ petitioner absented from duty without prior permission which is a serious misconduct and the punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" cannot be said to be disproportionate. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that unless punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of the Court / Tribunal there is no scope for interference with the punishment. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that unless punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of the Court / Tribunal there is no scope for interference with the punishment. 5. The Petitioner was charged for absenting himself for a period of 21 days and the charges were held proved. The Petitioner being a member of Disciplined force is expected to maintain strict discipline. 6. The imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion of Disciplinary Authority. Power under Article 226 is one of the judicial review. It is not a appeal from a decision. If misconduct is established normally the court would not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the court. 7. In (2006 Writ L.R.267) Union of India & 2 others Vs. P.Gurunathan, the Division Bench of this court held that writ petitioner being a member of Disciplined force in which strict discipline was required and a liberal approach cannot be adopted. .8. In Director General, RPF vs,. Ch.Sai Babu, (2003) 4 SCC 331 ), the Supreme Court held that the punishment imposed by a Disciplinary Authority, should normally not be disturbed by the High Court or a tribunal except when the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate. 9. Scope of interference with quantum of punishment has been a subject matter of various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court. In (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC), Union of India and Others vs. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, the Honble Supreme Court has held under: ".... 15. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrators 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 the Wednesburys (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. 16. To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 16. To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations, it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. 17. The above position was recently reiterated in Union of India and Another V. K.G. Soni 2006 (6) Supreme 389 : 2006-III-Rural Regional Bank and Others V. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 : (2005) 10 SCC 84 : 2005-I-LLj-730(SC) 10. In the circular pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, though it has been stated that once the delinquent is taken on duty punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" should not be given which guide lines may have to be kept in view by the Disciplinary Authority while dealing with desertion case. 11. Though the Petitioner is alleged to have absented for duty for 21 days the Disciplinary Authority had kept in view the past conduct of the Petitioner. In his 17 years of service, the Petitioner has earlier five punishment one for his desertion and two for his unauthorized absence for duty without obtaining leave or prior permission from his superior officers, misbehaviour with public and to the Sub-Inspector of Police in drunken mood while on duty. Insofar as the charge of misbehaviour, criminal case was filed against the Petitioner in Cr.520/2000 Tirupathur, Town P.S and charge sheet was filed in STC No.782/2001. Though the said case ended in acquittal by perusal of the judgment it is seen that Petitioner was given benefit of doubt and he was acquitted. 12. Having regard to the past conduct of the Petitioner, proved charge and that Petitioner himself absenting for 21 days, punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh warranting interference. 13. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that because of pendency of writ petition pension and other retiral benefits was not disbursed to the Petitioner. 13. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that because of pendency of writ petition pension and other retiral benefits was not disbursed to the Petitioner. If that be so, pension and other retiral benefits (Consequential to the Compulsory Retirement) shall be disbursed to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.