Judgment 1. THE petitioner was a 'constable' under Calcutta Police. Records would reveal that he was a habitual absentee. Regular proceedings were drawn on the basis of three chargesheets for absence of eighty-three days, one day on May 1, 2001 and eighty-two days between August 05, 2001 to November 22, 2001. From the records it further reveals that he was also absent on earlier occasions. As on the date of his removal he was found absent for 267 days. He was proceeded with departmentally after being warned from time to time. Ultimately, he suffered order of dismissal, which he challenged before the learned Tribunal unsuccessfully. THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Tribunal was indisposed and as such could not appear at the time of hearing. Although several points were urged before the Tribunal, new Advocate, who was later on engaged, urged only one plea to the extent that the Authority could not have considered the earlier records before passing the order of dismissal. THE Tribunal rejected such contention and dismissed the application. 2. BEING aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant application before us. Mr. Bhubaneshwar Sinha Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that althrough he was engaged in the matter, however, he was indisposed at the relevant time and as such could not argue before the Tribunal. According to Mr. Sinha Roy, the points urged by the petitioner were not properly placed before the Tribunal. He prays for liberty to urge those points before this Court. Mr. Majumdar, appearing for the State has not opposed such prayer. 3. ACCORDING to the petitioner, chargesheet issued by the State did not specifically suggest as to which punishment would be imposed, i.e. major or minor. ACCORDING to Mr. Sinha Roy, to award major punishment, the administration must follow the required procedure as prescribed under Form No. 5322, which was not followed in the instant case. He also contends that since the chargesheet was not specific about the punishment, the entire proceeding was vitiated by illegality. He also contends that Regulation 9 of Chapter XIX of Police Regulation, 1968 was followed in breach. He also suggests that the petitioner received the chargesheet on a day when another notice asking him to appear before his superior, was also served. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before his superior and prayed for mercy and he was allowed to join his duty. He also suggests that the petitioner received the chargesheet on a day when another notice asking him to appear before his superior, was also served. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before his superior and prayed for mercy and he was allowed to join his duty. Since he was allowed to join his duty under Rule 34 of the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, his past absence stood regularised and he could not be proceeded with further, far to speak of imposing any punishment. 4. LASTLY, Mr. Sinha Roy contends, assuming that the authority was entitled to proceed against him departmentally, the punishment imposed upon him was thoroughly disproportionate compared to the charges proved against him. Elaborating his submission, Mr. Sinha Roy relies on the Apex Court decision in the matter of Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2003(3) SCC 309 and a Division Bench decision of our High Court in the matter of Tapan Kumar Dey vs. United Bank of India and Ors., reported in 1994 (1) CLJ 201. 5. OPPOSING the application, Mr. Abhrotosh Majumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the State, contends that Rule 34 would not at all be applicable in the instant application as would appear from the said Rule itself wherein the employee, who was absenting unauthorisedly, could be taken back in service at any point of time even during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding provided he was not under suspension. Mr. Majumdar contends that merely because the petitioner was allowed to join his duty, did not specifically absolve him from the charges brought against him. 6. ON the issue of applicability of Regulation 9, Mr. Majumdar contends that Form 5322 prescribes the complete procedure to be adopted in a disciplinary proceeding; the said procedure was followed in the instant case as would appear from scrutiny of the records. Hence, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner on that score is fallacious. On the issue of disproportionate punishment, Mr. Majumdar cites Apex Court decision in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. and Ors. vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, reported in 2008(5) SCC 569 and submits that the petitioner, being a habitual absentee, was earlier warned, he could amend himself which he did not. Hence, the authority was compelled to dismiss him from service. 7. MR. Majumdar cites Apex Court decision in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, V.S.P. and Ors. vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, reported in 2008(5) SCC 569 and submits that the petitioner, being a habitual absentee, was earlier warned, he could amend himself which he did not. Hence, the authority was compelled to dismiss him from service. 7. MR. Majumdar also relies on an unreported decision in W.P.S.T. 497 of 2009 (Ratan Dutta vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.) wherein in an identical situation this Court upheld the punishment of removal from service. 8. THE argument advanced by Mr. Majumdar sounds logical. We have carefully examined Form No. 5322, appearing at page 101 - 103 of the petition. From the format it is clear that it was more of a procedural guideline than a prescribed format to be applied. In effect, this was nothing but a guideline to be followed in case of a major punishment being proposed to be inflicted. The chargesheet prescribes the charges. The chargesheet clearly indicated that he would be proceeded departmentally through a regular enquiry, which prescribed of major punishment to be inflicted. Hence, merely because it was not specified that major punishment would be imposed upon the delinquent, the chargesheet could not be said to be vitiated by illegality. 9. THE matter may be looked into from another angle. THE chargesheet may be issued asking the delinquent to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded with departmentally and he would not be imposed with any punishment. It was not necessary to indicate in the chargesheet as to which punishment would be inflicted, hence, such argument of the petitioner is not tenable and as such is rejected. 10. ON the issue of Rule 34 we have considered such contention in detail in WPST 497 of 2009. We hold that merely because the delinquent was allowed to join his duty, would not mean that it would absolve him of the offence he had committed for which a regular disciplinary proceeding was pending. The petitioner was not suspended. He was proceeded with on a definite charge of unauthorised absence for a particular period. Hence there was no impediment on him to join and the authority obliged by allowing him to join his duty. The petitioner was not suspended. He was proceeded with on a definite charge of unauthorised absence for a particular period. Hence there was no impediment on him to join and the authority obliged by allowing him to join his duty. The authority could not refuse him until and unless he was dismissed or removed from service through a regular departmental proceeding. Hence the second argument is also rejected being not tenable. On the issue of disproportionate punishment, we feel that the petitioner being a member of a disciplined Force should be fair enough and adhere to the discipline and norms. He was a habitual absentee. He could not be shown any lenient view, which would carry a wrong signal to a Disciplined Force. We hold that the Authority was right in dismissing him from service. The Tribunal rightly did not interfere. 11. THE application fails and is hereby dismissed. 12. THERE would be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis.