JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Standing counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 2. After hearing the parties, the fact borne out that on account of absence from duty for about 23 days a charge-sheet was served on the claimant respondent and after holding inquiry he was punished with dismissal from service. 3. A plea was taken before the Tribunal that documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer were never served on the claimant respondents. Accordingly, Tribunal relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Triloki Nath v. Union of India and others, 1967 SLR 759, held that denial to provide copy of material document amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend. The finding recorded by the tribunal on this score has not been disputed. However, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that Tribunal should have given liberty to proceed a fresh. 4. The other ground relied upon by the tribunal is that when the respondent had resumed duty his application for leave was accepted by the authority and leave was duly sanctioned but without pay. Accordingly, tribunal after considering the certain judgments of this Court held that once leave was sanctioned and it was treated as ‘leave without pay’ it was not open to the respondent to charge the claimant for misconduct. 5. However, learned Standing counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner submits that leave was sanctioned with regard to continuity of service and it shall not mitigate the misconduct relying upon the judgments reported in 2003 (8) SCC 458 and 2003 (3) SCC 464 . 6. So far as submission of learned Standing counsel that sanctioning of leave does not mitigate the misconduct, may be correct, but fact remains that the enquiry proceeding was held against the petitioner in utter disregard of principle of natural justice and no reasonable opportunity was given to defend the cause. 7. From the material on record it also borne out that the respondent went on leave because of sudden death of his son. In such situation sympathetic view should have been taken by the employer with regard to petitioner’s plight who had lost his son and rushed to provide necessary aid. In such situation major penalty awarded against the petitioner seems to be no justified, more so when the authorities themselves had sanctioned leave without payment of salary. In such situation sympathetic view should have been taken by the employer with regard to petitioner’s plight who had lost his son and rushed to provide necessary aid. In such situation major penalty awarded against the petitioner seems to be no justified, more so when the authorities themselves had sanctioned leave without payment of salary. 8. By catena of judgment their lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the order of punishment shakes the conscious of the Court, then while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court may interfere on the ground of quantum of punishment. 9. We are of the view that absence from duty was under compelling circumstances to attend his son who died and over staying of leave was also under compelling circumstances. 10. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to permit the petitioner to proceed a fresh against the claimant respondents. However, so far as payment of salary is concerned we confined it to the 50 per cent admissible under the Rules. To that extent the tribunal’s order dated 22.11.1993 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition stands modified. Writ petition is allowed in part accordingly. —————