Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order passed by the First Respondent in Proc.Ma.A.8 Na.Ka.No./ Su.Thu/H1/1675/2003 dated 11. 2003 and the consequential Appellate Order passed in Proc.Ma.A.8.Na.Ka.No.H1/328/04 dated 30.06.2004 and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner in service with full back wages and other consequential service benefits. 2. Brief facts in a nut-shell are as follows:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant on 17.04.1971 and was working in Revenue Department, in the Zonal Office No.IX, Corporation of Chennai. A Charge Memo dated 20.04.1998 was issued against the Petitioner levelling four charges, viz., (i) Petitioner was unauthorizedly absent for duty from 29.05.1997; (ii) Petitioner has belatedly submitted the two leave letters for two spells; (iii) Petitioner has caused inconvenience and dislocation of office work; and (iv) Petitioners carelessness and disobedience towards Office Rules. As the Petitioner has not submitted his reply, a disciplinary proceedings U/s. R.9(2) of Madras Corporation Class III & IV Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) was initiated against the Petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted his report to the First Respondent, holding that all the charges are proved. On the basis of the Enquiry Report dated 26.03.1999, the First Respondent passed the order of termination dated 11. 2003. Challenging the order of removal from service, Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Second Respondent, which came to be dismissed on 30.06.2004, confirming the punishment. Challenging the order of termination dated 11. 2003 and the Judgment dated 30.06.2004, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner. 3. Opposing the Petition, the 1st Respondent filed counter stating that after following the necessary procedure Enquiry Officer held that all the charges were proved and that the Petitioner was removed from service and punishment of removal from service was imposed. 4. Challenging the impugned order of punishment the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, contended that punishment is disproportionate to the nature of charges. It was further submitted that for one spell of absence Respondent Corporation was not justified in imposing punishment of removal from service. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent Corporation submitted that several opportunity was given to the Petitioner and there was no violation of principle of natural justice. It was further submitted that there was willful absence and therefore punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the charges levelled against the Petitioner. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st Respondent Corporation submitted that several opportunity was given to the Petitioner and there was no violation of principle of natural justice. It was further submitted that there was willful absence and therefore punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the charges levelled against the Petitioner. 6. Even though several grounds were raised in the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions regarding proportionality of punishment. Learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner was absent from 29.05.1997 and the Petitioner had submitted his Medical Certificate on 26.08.1997 and while so the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges. 7. Petitioner applied for C.L on 29.05.1997 and 30.05.1997. He has applied for medical leave from 02.06.1997 to 30.07.1997 ofcourse there was delay in submitting medical certificate i.e. 26.08.1997. 8. Placing reliance upon 2004-3-L.W. 99 S.N Vijayakumar vs The Superintending Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Mettur & another the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that in case of unauthorised absence mercy and sympathy would not apply and that exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 the Court cannot be impelled by sympathetic consideration. 9. In the case of Om Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India, 2001(2) SCC 386 , while considering the quantum of punishment/proportionality has observed that in determining the quantum, role of administrative authority is primary and that of Court is secondary, confined to see if discretion exercised by the administrative authority caused excessive infringement of rights. 10. In the case of B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 484 the Honble Supreme Court has held that 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. 11. In the case of V. Ramana Vs. 11. In the case of V. Ramana Vs. A.P.SRTC and others, 2005 (7) SCC 338 , the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: "The Common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not intefere 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 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." 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has put in more than 32 years of service and that he has no previous record of misconduct. It was further submitted that having regard to the long service of the Petitioner punishment of dismissal from service could be modified as compulsory retirement. 13. The contention that Petitioner had blemishless service does not appear to be correct from the memo filed by the learned counsel for the Respondents, it is seen that Petitioner is a chronic absentee and that he was dealt with unauthorised absence for more than once. Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 20.02.1976 to 27.09.1976 again the Petitioner unauthorisedly absent from service 110. 1981 to 03.07.1983 and he rejoined service 04.07.1983. The unauthorised absence which is subject matter of the charge was the third instance of unauthorised absence. 14. As pointed out earlier charge memo was issued on 20.04.1998. After issuance of charge memo the Petitioner rejoined service on 02.06.1998. Again he was unauthorisedly absent from service from 25.06.1999 to 210. 2002 and he rejoined service on 210. 2002. Again the Petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 01.07.2003 till the date of removal from service. 15. Having regard to conduct of the Petitioner exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration. Having regard to the conduct of the Petitioner being unauthorisedly absent, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate warranting interference. 16. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.