JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr.Pradeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The summarised version of the relevant facts is that the appellant/writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial) by the Directorate General, Central Reserve Police Force in the month of October 1992 was transferred on 21.7.2004 from Ajmer to Anant Nag (Kashmir) i.e.67 Battalion. As the petitioner and his family, at that point of time, were beset with health and other problems, he represented before the concerned authorities to alter his place of posting at nearby places, like Delhi or Rajasthan so as to enable him to take care of his old and ailing parents. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, he also was suffering from cervical spondylitis and lumber spondylitis, as a result whereof, he was not physically in a state to resume his duties. His doctors also advised him rest. He therefore, could not join his place of posting in terms of his transfer, and instead, he took treatment and submitted medical sickness certificates for the period from 1.8.2004 to20.8.2005. The respondents too reimbursed the amount of some medical bills towards his treatment. However meanwhile, the respondent No.2 on 30.3.2006, issued memorandum of charges against him imputing unauthorized absence from duties with effect from 3.8.2004. The appellant/writ petitioner did submit a reply contending that in view of his illness, he was not in a position to resume his duties. The respondent No.2 however on 12.5.2006, imposed on him the penalty of dismissal from service on the charge of unauthorized absence from duties. His departmental appeal having failed, he approached this Court for redress. 3. By the impugned judgment and order, his challenge has been negated. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has argued that as he (appellant) had remained ill and was under treatment for the period involved, he could not be branded to be unauthorizedly absent from duty, and thus, the penalty of dismissal from service is patently illegal. Contending that the reimbursement of some of the medical bills of the appellant/writ petitioner, did signify that the concerned authorities were satisfied about the authenticity and genuineness of the factum of his illness, Mr.Mathur has urged that on that ground alone, no disciplinary action against him was called for. Contending that the reimbursement of some of the medical bills of the appellant/writ petitioner, did signify that the concerned authorities were satisfied about the authenticity and genuineness of the factum of his illness, Mr.Mathur has urged that on that ground alone, no disciplinary action against him was called for. According to the learned counsel, the disciplinary enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, and that, in any view of the matter, the penalty of dismissal from service, having regard to the charge levelled, is shockingly disproportionate. Mr.Mathur has argued that at the time of dismissal from service, the appellant/writ petitioner was serving as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial), and though as on date, he has not fully recovered, he is in a position to discharge his duties and responsibilities relatable to the said post. 5. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, was of the view, having regard to all essential factual aspects, that the grant of medical reimbursement vis-a-vis some of the bills of the appellant/writ petitioner, did not per se denote that the respondents had condoned his prolonged absence from duty. It was held that the appellant/writ petitioner inspite of repeated reminders did not report for duty. He also did not cooperate with the disciplinary enquiry. It was held, in particular, that on 15.9.2005, the concerned medical board, on examining the appellant/writ petitioner though had declared him fit, yet he failed to report for duty. 6. We have closely perused the pleaded facts and also the order dated 12.5.2006, whereby the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed from service. 7. On a conjoint consideration of the materials on record, we are of the view that the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and order are founded on contemporaneous documents and the facts detailed therein. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible one and cannot be dubbed as illegal or absurd. The continuous period of absence of the appellant/writ petitioner from duty on and from 3.8.2004 inspite of repeated communications asking him to do so, in our view, disentitles him to any relief, as claimed. This is moreso, as he had been, at all points of time, a member of the disciplined force. The continuous period of absence of the appellant/writ petitioner from duty on and from 3.8.2004 inspite of repeated communications asking him to do so, in our view, disentitles him to any relief, as claimed. This is moreso, as he had been, at all points of time, a member of the disciplined force. His plea of being sick and under medical treatment, for which he had been somewhat medically reimbursed, ipso facto, as concluded by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, does not warrant any interference with the penalty imposed on him. As it is, the respondents are the best Judge to decide on a disciplinary action, having regard to the institutional discipline and probity, and this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, should not lightly interfere therewith. 8. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******