ORDER M.P. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) - The applicant in this case has challenged the order of punishment passed against him on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty. 2. The case of the applicant as revealed in his O.A. is as follows: The applicant joined govt. service as a Police Constable in the district of Boudh on 1.4.2000. He was rewarded on several occasions for displaying exceptional skill and hard work. On 2.10.03 he was working as APR Constable. On that date he was directed by the Reserve Inspector, Boudh by command certificate No. 46 dt. 2.10.03 to proceed to Baunsasuni with the Havildar and some other constables for performing law and order duty during Dasahara festival. On 3.10.03 around 3.30 P.M. while on duty the applicant proceeded to Baunsasuni bazar to take tea by informing Constables C/26 G. Meher and C/59 S.K. Jena, who were present in Baunsasuni P.S. premises. While he was taking tea at Baunsasuni bazar, he suddenly felt high fever with profuse vomiting. He proceeded to Baunsasuni PHC and was treated by the Medical Officer Dr. Mohadra Sai till 10 P.M. on that date. After feeling better, he left the PHC at 10.30 P.M. on that date. After feeling better, he left the PHC at 10.30 PM and returned to Baunsasuni P.S. on 9.12.03 he suddenly received a notice under Anx. 1 intimating him about initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty from 3.45 PM on 3.10.03. He submitted his written defence under Anx. 2 explaining, in details, the circumstances under which he was forced to leave his duty. The respondents however, did not accept his reply and proceeded with the inquiry. Sri U.C. Behera, SDPO, Boudh was appointed as the Inquiring Officer. On completion of the inquiry, he submitted his report dt. 24.6.04 under Anx. 2. In the enquiry report he was found guilty of the charge of unauthorised absence from duty from 3.10.03 at 3.45 P.M. till 4.10.03 at 5 A.M. The disciplinary authority (respondent No.3) on receipt of the enquiry report served a second show cause notice on the applicant. The respondent No. 3 after receipt of the show cause reply submitted by the applicant passed the final orders under Anx. 3 dt. 31.7.04 imposing penalty of two Black Marks on the applicant. The respondent No. 3 after receipt of the show cause reply submitted by the applicant passed the final orders under Anx. 3 dt. 31.7.04 imposing penalty of two Black Marks on the applicant. Thereafter the applicant preferred an appeal to the DIG (SD), Berhampur (respondent No.2) against the penalty imposed on him by respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal by his order dt. 1.2.05 under Anx. 4. Thereafter the applicant preferred a revision before respondent No. 1 under Anx. 5 dt. 2.4.05. The respondent No. 1 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction reduced the punishment from two Black Marks to one Black Mark by his order dt. 22.2.10 (Anx. 6). The grievance of the applicant is that the findings recorded by the Inquiring Officer is perverse and based on no evidence. Further the Inquiring Officer did not take into account the medical certificate produced by him and unreasonably rejected his plea of illness. His further grievance is that the respondent No. 1 mechanically accepted the inquiry report without application of mind and the respondent No. 2 while exercising his appellate jurisdiction also did not apply his mind to the evidence on record in a proper manner. Hence the applicant has prayed to quash the punishment orders issued against him under Anxs. 3, 4 and 6. 3. The respondents in their counter while supporting the punishment order issued against the applicant, pleaded as follows: 4. During inquiry, on verification of the Outpatient Register maintained in the hospital it was found that the entry relating to the applicant was the last entry of the day. The applicant returned to the camp at 5 A.M. on the next date though he was discharged from the hospital at 10 P.M. on the previous night. The applicant should have intimate his arrival to the Havildar under whose command he was directed to work. The inquiry was conducted in a fair manner giving full opportunity to the applicant to defend himself. The finding recorded by the Inquiring Officer was based on sound reasons and sufficient evidence. 5. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Inquiring Officer did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced during enquiry and did not give proper weight age to the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant. The finding recorded by the Inquiring Officer was based on sound reasons and sufficient evidence. 5. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Inquiring Officer did not properly appreciate the evidence adduced during enquiry and did not give proper weight age to the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the applicant. This Tribunal is not the appellate authority to re-assess the evidence adduced before the Inquiring Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. The plea of insufficient evidence or improper assessment of evidence, therefore, is not available to the applicant. 6. It is no where pleaded by the applicant that proper procedure was not followed during enquiry. Even if the applicant's case is accepted to be true as a whole, still the applicant cannot escape the charge of unauthorised absence. On his own admission the applicant left his duty at 3 PM and went to Baunsasuni bazar to take tea. This itself is sufficient to establish the charge levelled against the applicant. He did not take the permission of the Havildar in-charge before leaving the camp. During his absence from the camp, the applicant left the service rifle in the custody of another constable on duty. 7. In view of such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the punishment orders issued against the applicant. 8. In the result, the O.A. is found to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. O.A. dismissed.