JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. The petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as Safai-Karamchari on the establishment of the respondent-District and Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., was served with show cause notice dated 9.4.2008, Annexure P-6, pursuant to which he was charge sheeted on the following three counts as per Annexure-I to the said memo:- "Article-I That you, Shri Sonu, Safai-karamchari, while functioning as such in the office of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum-JMIC, Manali, District Kullu, H.P., have remained willfully absent from duties w.e.f. 17.03.2008 till date. Therefore, you, Shri Sonu, aforesaid, while functioning as such in aforesaid office, absenting yourself and not performing duties, liable for action for willful/unauthorized absence. Article-II That you, Shri Sonu, aforesaid, have failed to clean toilets, rooms/court compound as well as High Court Guest House, Manali, in the peak season, due to your willful absence. And also failed to comply the orders of your superiors, to explain your No. position and to submit your replies of show cause notices and not join your duties. Therefore, you, Sh. Sonu, aforesaid, while functioning as such in aforesaid office, not doing your duties or complying the orders of your superiors, liable for action for willful insubordination, misconduct and disobedience. Article-III That you, Shri Sonu, aforesaid, were also charge-sheeted for wilful absence on 23rd February, 2005 and thereafter on 28th May, 2007 for the above noted charges. And the charges were also proved against you vide Inquiry reports dated 14th December, 2005 of the Inquiring Officer the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-cum- JMIC, Manali and dated 15th January, 2008 of the Inquiring Officer, the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)-cum-CJM, Kullu, respectively. And upon these Inquiry reports, the Disciplinary Authority had also imposed the penalties of 'Withholding of one increment' with cumulative effect, vide order dated 11/12th Oct., 2006 and 'Withholding of two increments" with cumulative effect vide order dated 5th April, 2008 respectively, But you fails to improve your working/attitude. Therefore, you, Shri Sonu, aforesaid, while functioning as such in aforesaid office, by absenting yourself, not performing your duties and not replying to show cause notices etc. made liable for action for willful/unauthorized absence, insubordination, misconduct and disobedience." 2. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the same culminated in submission of report dated 23.10.2008, Annexure P-11, by the Inquiring Authority. Resultantly, the petitioner was removed from service vide office order dated 27.8.2009, Annexure P-12. 3. made liable for action for willful/unauthorized absence, insubordination, misconduct and disobedience." 2. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the same culminated in submission of report dated 23.10.2008, Annexure P-11, by the Inquiring Authority. Resultantly, the petitioner was removed from service vide office order dated 27.8.2009, Annexure P-12. 3. Against the foregoing background, the petition has been filed on the following substantive prayers:- "(a) That office order dated 27th August, 2009 issued by respondent (Annexure P-12) may kindly be quashed while issuing the writ of certiorari. (b) That the respondent may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as Safai-karamchari with effect from the date of his illegal removal from service i.e. 27th August, 2009 with all consequential benefits and also to pay to the petitioner the remuneration he is entitled to for the period during which he remained under suspension and the period of absence of the petitioner may kindly be regularised with any kind of leave due, while issuing the writ in the nature of mandamus." 4. Admittedly, before approaching this court by way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has not availed of an equally efficacious remedy of departmental appeal. It being so, the petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer such appeal to the competent authority in accordance with Rules/law within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, in which event rigors of limitation would not come in his way, as he has been pursuing the matter all through. Needless to say that the Appellate Authority would consider the proportionality between the misconduct proved against the petitioner and the penalty imposed upon him in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineering College and others, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 301, wherein it has been held as under, vide paras 8 and 10 of the report:- "8. The instant case is not a case of habitual absenteeism. The appellant seems to have a good track record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In his long career of service, he remained absent for fifteen days on four occasions in the months of February and March 2004. This was primarily to sort out the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The appellant seems to have a good track record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In his long career of service, he remained absent for fifteen days on four occasions in the months of February and March 2004. This was primarily to sort out the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to apply and obtain leave from the employer. The misconduct that is alleged, in our view, would definitely amount to violation of discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in the establishment, but may not fit into the category of gross violation of discipline. We hasten to add, if it were to be habitual absenteeism, we would not have ventured to entertain this appeal. 10. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to the unblemished record of the appellant, and the reasons for which he remained absent without obtaining permission, the ends of justice would be met, if punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and further declare that he would not be entitled for any monetary benefits during the period he was out of service and that period would be counted only for the purpose of his service benefits. We direct the disciplinary authority to issue appropriate orders in this regard within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this Court's order by either of the parties." 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.