JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. : The petitioner was working as an Assist¬ant in the office of Life Insurance Corporation, Berhampur Branch-I. He seeks to assail the order dated 27.5.1996 (Annexure-2) passed by opposite party No.1 imposing punishment of reduction in the basic pay by five stages permanently. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts are stated here-in-below for better appreciation. The petitioner while continuing in the post of Assistant at Berhampur Branch of the Life Insurance Corporation went on leave to attend his ailing wife, who suffered from cardiac problems. His wife was admitted in M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur. Unfortunately there was no other male member in the family and as the treatment continued for a long time and she was to undergo operation at Satyasai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Prasanti Nilayam, Putaparty at Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner could not join in his duties within the sanctioned leave period.He was constrained to extend his leave time and again. While his wife was struggling between life and death, his elder son, who was prosecuting his +2 studies, absconded from his house and despite sincere attempts, the petitioner could not trace his whereabouts. In view of the aforesaid mishappenings, the peti¬tioner lost his balance of mind and could not report to his duties till 8.9.1993. After gaining confidence, he submitted his joining report on 9.9.1993, but the same was not accepted by the authorities on the ground that he has already been removed from service with effect from 22.1.1993. 3. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that by order dated 22.1.1993 (Annexure-2), the Senior Divisional Manager had imposed punishment of removal from service in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Regulation 39(1)(F) read with 39(4) (III) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960, in short, “Regulation, 1960”, mainly on the ground that the petitioner remained absent continuously for more than ninety days without any communication whatsoever. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in consonance with Regulation 40 of the Regulation, 1960 before the Zonal Manager. After perusing the records, the appellate authority found that the petitioner re¬mained absent from the office with effect from 30.10.1991 without any sanctioned leave. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in consonance with Regulation 40 of the Regulation, 1960 before the Zonal Manager. After perusing the records, the appellate authority found that the petitioner re¬mained absent from the office with effect from 30.10.1991 without any sanctioned leave. On verification of the leave records of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had sent telegrams till 18.11.1991 requesting to extend his leave, but then no leave application was filed nor any supporting medical documents were submitted. The appellate authority further found that a depart¬mental proceeding was initiated, charge-sheet was framed and show cause notice was issued, unfortunately the petitioner failed to submit any show cause. Thus, the appellate authority was satis¬fied that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before passing final order of dismissal from service. The Zonal Manger (appellate authority) on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the charge-sheet took a liberal and lenient view and set aside the order of removal of the petitioner from the services of the Corporation and instead imposed punishment of reduction of basic pay by five stages permanently as per Regula¬tion 39(1)(d) of the Regulation, 1960. The said order, as stated earlier, is assailed in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment imposed is too harsh. It is stated that the petitioner was not granted enough opportunity by the disciplinary authority. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner had no intention to remain absent from service, but the circumstances compelled him to do so. Reiterating the facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment awarded is not only excessive but also disproportionate to the alleged charges and it is a fit case where the same should be set aside. 6. Mr. Sanjit Mohanty, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the Corporation, on the other hand, took pain to place the orders passed by the authorities before this Court and submitted that perusal of the same would reveal that the petitioner had not acted bonafidely inasmuch as though opportunity was given to him to show cause, he failed to avail the same. It is further submit¬ted tha in consonance with the Regulation, 1960 if an employee remains absent unauthorisedly for more than the stipulated peri¬od, the authorities have the power to dismiss him from service. It is further submit¬ted tha in consonance with the Regulation, 1960 if an employee remains absent unauthorisedly for more than the stipulated peri¬od, the authorities have the power to dismiss him from service. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the appellate authority has taken a very lenient view and it is a fit case where the writ application may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused all the documents annexed to the writ applica¬tion and counter affidavit meticulously. 8. Regulation 39 of the Regulation, 1960 prescribes penal¬ties to be imposed for good and sufficient reasons on an employee who commits a breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation Clause (d) of the said Regulation reads as follows : “(d) reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time - scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale.” 9. In the case in hand, as would be evident from the facts and circumstances, the petitioner went through a turmoil period inasmuch as his wife suffered from cardiac problems and had to ultimately undergo operation at Satyasai Institute of Higher Medical Sciences, Prasanti Nilayam, Putaparty at Andhra Pradesh. Added to it, his son, who was a +2 student absconded. The shock a person would receive by such mis-happenings definitely would be very severe. Admittedly, the petitioner proceeded on leave at the first instance, but later on, circumstances became such, that he was not able to come and join and/or extend his period of leave. He was the only male member of the family. The facts further reveal that he was appointed on 1.6.1962 and was confirmed on 1.2.1963. He proceeded on leave in the year 1991. Thus, he had served the Corporation for near about 30 years and as such, it is to be presumed that he had enough leave to his credit and the disciplinary authority should have taken a lenient view and ad¬justed the period of absence in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate authority has considered all the facts and circumstances with an humanitarian touch. He had set aside the order of dismissal and in stead imposed the penalty of reduction of basic pay by five stages permanently. 10. The appellate authority has considered all the facts and circumstances with an humanitarian touch. He had set aside the order of dismissal and in stead imposed the penalty of reduction of basic pay by five stages permanently. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the penalty imposed though strictly speak¬ing is not disproportionate to the allegations, but towards the higher side. This Court, therefore, while not interfering with the order passed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-2. Modified the penalty of reduction of basic pay by two stages permanently in stead of five stages. 11. With the aforesaid modification of penalty, the writ application is disposed of. B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. I agree. Application disposed of.