ORDER : The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated 17.3.2004 by which the petitioner has been removed from service, has approached this Court. It has been argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has departmentally been proceeded for unauthorised absence from 16.6.2003 to 24.10.2003 i.e. for 131 days and memorandum of charge has been issued. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the relevant period the petitioner was seriously ill and due to that reason he could not be able to present himself in the office. The petitioner has tried to satisfy the Enquiry Officer that the absence was not willful rather due to circumstance beyond his control. Since he was suffering from serious illness like cardiac problem, etc., he has produced medical certificate to that effect before the authority but without considering this aspect of the matter, the charge has been proved by the Enquiry Officer. 3. The petitioner has also tried to satisfy the disciplinary authority in the reply submitted before him stating therein that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the fact regarding his illness. The petitioner, thereafter, has filed revision before the Inspector General, North Sector, New Delhi. The petitioner has also tried to satisfy the revisional authority while taking revision before him including medical certificates, but the revisional authority has also not considered all further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a young Constable and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh which needs reconsideration on the point of quantum of punishment. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has willfully absented from duty. The specific statement has been made by the respondents-State in paragraphs-15 and 16 of the counter affidavit, which are as follows:- “15. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the answering respondent says and submits that not acceptable because as per the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahesh Kumar, MBBS, MO, New PHC, Chakia, Deoria he was declared fit to resume his duties on 16.9.2003. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the answering respondent says and submits that not acceptable because as per the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahesh Kumar, MBBS, MO, New PHC, Chakia, Deoria he was declared fit to resume his duties on 16.9.2003. He should have to report on due date by starting his journey from his home town on 16.9.2003 or 17.9.2003, but he had failed to join his duties on due date and further remained absent from 16.9.2003 to 24.10.2003 (i.e. 39 days) without any reason as well as prior permission approval of competent authority by self willfulness and reported on 25.10.2003 (FN). 16. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph8 of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the answering respondent says and submits that not acceptable because as per the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahesh Kumar, MBBS, MO, New PHC, Chakia, Deoria he was suffering from viral hepatitis 12.6.2003 and was declared fit to resume his duties on 16.9.2003. But he had remained absent from leave w.e.f. 16.9.2003 to 24.10.2003 without any reasons/information as well as prior permission/approval of competent authority and reported on 25.10.2003 (FN) along with medical documents in support of his medical treatment/OSL period w.e.f. 12.6.2003 to 15.9.2003, but the prescription slips, medicine bills, medical tests/investigation reports etc. which was found irregularities/false/wrong. He should have to report in his duties on due date by starting journey from his home town on 16.9.2003 or 17.9.2003, but the delinquent neither joined his duties nor informed his superior officer in this regard and further remained absent wilfully from 16.9.2003 to 24.10.2003 (i.e. 39 days) and reported at his own on 25.10.2003 (FN). At present facility of telephone/internet/telegram/letter available in the every corner of our country and nobody can say that he does not have any one of the above facility to inform his superior officer about his sickness and his intention to extend his leave. In the previous petition/appeal he admitted that he did not inform his superior/department. But now he has stated that the letter written by him could not reach the Ranchi Unit Headquarter. Therefore, it is evident that he is giving contradictory statement and lying.” 5. In the previous petition/appeal he admitted that he did not inform his superior/department. But now he has stated that the letter written by him could not reach the Ranchi Unit Headquarter. Therefore, it is evident that he is giving contradictory statement and lying.” 5. Thus, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner wilfully has not presented himself for discharging his duty because the Doctor has given medical fitness certificate to resume his duty on 16.9.2003 but even then he failed to resume his duty. 6. Heard the parties. 7. The petitioner has been proceeded departmentally for unauthorised absence of 131 days i.e. for the period from 16.6.2003 to 24.10.2003. The ground which has been taken by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, appellate authority as well as revisional authority, has been discussed in detail which is being quoted herein below :- “Para-02 That, the revisionist was suffering from cardiac problem since 5.12.2000 and medical report dated 23.5.01 shows Mid systolic closure which is a vital problem which creates Giddiness and for this he was treated in Guwahati and was cured but, this problem needs regular check up which was not done by the revisionist. Not acceptable, No.920810345 Ex-Ct/Ftr Maksudan Yadav (petitioner) was treated at BH-III Guwahati for his illness (i.e. Erotic Regularization) wef 16.5.01 to 26.5.01 vide indoor Regn. No.439/2001. He was referred by GC Hospital, Imphal vide OPD No.1060 Regn. No.82. He was presently assymtionatie and was referred to BH-1 for proper assessment as per BH-1 Regn No.636/03 dated 11.12.2003. Thereafter, he was referred to Cardiology Deptt. Of G.B. Pant Hospital New Delhi. According to the said referral slip individual produced for Echo test which was done on 23.5.01 only, which clearly shows that individual has no cardiac problem after treatment during May 2001 at BH-III Guwahati. On going through the investigation report of GB Pant Hospital, New Delhi carried out on 12.12.03 it was evident that all reports of the individual were found normal. However, he was again advice for review on 26.3.04 i.e. near about after 14 weeks. It also clearly shows that above individual was not having any serious cardiac problem otherwise he would have been admitted/retained for further management. However, he was again advice for review on 26.3.04 i.e. near about after 14 weeks. It also clearly shows that above individual was not having any serious cardiac problem otherwise he would have been admitted/retained for further management. On going through the above facts it was clear that during the course of proceeding of the D.E. Individual very well known that he was not having enough grounds/documents to defend his case to justify his OSL period. As such, he started pretending that he is suffering from cardiac problem and get it managed to proof himself as a fair person by referring to various hospitals to obtain some medical documents etc, Whereas he also failed to pay and heel to the advises given by the Doctors. Such as he did not undergone ECG and Echo cardiogram test as advised by 121 Bn. M.O. as per the OPD slip 28249 dated 24.11.03 of RIMS, Ranchi produced by the individual, he never reported again to same hospital for further treatment i.e. after 15 days. He further managed to get himself for referring to BH-I, CRPF, New Delhi and succeeded to obtain some referral slips and investigation reports which do not confirm that he was suffering any cardiac problem. All during the course of D.E. to defend himself. Para-03 That, he was granted 60 days leave from 16.4.2003 and was to report duty by 16.6.2003 but in the meantime his earlier problem of Mid systolic closure arises than he report to public health centre Chakia in his hometown on 12.6.2003 but the medical officer could not assess the disease and he started treating him for a common disease of viral hepatitis which is a common disease in the area because the symptom seems to be the same and advised him to 2 months bed rest. It is pertinent to mention here that the Doctor was not medically fully equipped and he did not conducted any medical test also. And the medicine given was supplied to him by the public health centre Chakia then the doctor advised him that he is giving him medical fit certificate and the revisionist should approach the advance doctor having all medical facility available, then the revisionist having no alternative left returned to the unit headquarter in ailing condition. Not acceptable because the medical certificate issued by Dr. Not acceptable because the medical certificate issued by Dr. Mahesh Kumar, MBBS, M.O. New P.H.C. Chakia, Deoria stating that he was suffering from viral hepatitis since 12.6.03 and was declared fit to resume his duties on 16.9.03. Even after declaring medically fit by the above doctor, he failed to join his duties well in time and reported on 25.10.2003 (FN) again after willful absence from 16.9.03 to 24.10.2003 without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority.” 8. Thus, from perusal of the revisional order passed by the revisional authority it is apparent that the doctor who has treated the petitioner has found him medically fit to resume his duty on 16.9.2003, even after that the petitioner has failed to join his duty and reported on 25.10.2003 and thereafter also he has absented from 16.9.2003 to 24.10.2003 without obtaining permission from the competent authority. 9. However, the order with respect to the contention of the petitioner that even after medically fit on 16.9.2003 he fell ill and he again treated at RIMS, Ranchi that has also been discussed at para-4 of the revisional order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein it has been stated by not accepting all the plea of the petitioner on the basis of the prescription slip issued by the RIMS, Ranchi dated 23.11.2003 but the fact remains that the petitioner was charge sheeted for unauthorised absence from 16.6.2003 to 24.10.2003. Admittedly, petitioner was declared medically fit to resume duty on 16.9.2003 by the doctor which has been discussed in para-3 of the revisional order. 10. The charge which has been levelled against the petitioner is unauthorised absence. The authority who has dealt with the entire documents, which have been produced by the petitioner, including the medical certificate by which the petitioner was declared medically fit, has come to the conclusion disbelieving the contentions of the petitioner and coming to the conclusion that when the petitioner was declared medically fit to resume the duty on 16.9.2003, even then the petitioner did not resume the duty and admittedly the authority has come to the concurrent findings reaching to the conclusion of the unauthorised absence of the petitioner by discussing all the evidences. 11. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the evidence. 11. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot reappraise the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 held that the court in its power/judicial review does not act as an appellate authority and reappreciate the evidence and arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The relevant portion of this case at paragraphs-12 and 13 are quoted herein below :- “12. ….......... When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusion are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant.” 12. The same settled proposition of law has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 wherein at para-20 it has been held that :- “20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority.” 13. Further, in the case of State of U.P. & ors. Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at para 4 as follows: “.................... At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority.” 13. Further, in the case of State of U.P. & ors. Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at para 4 as follows: “.................... It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.” 14. So far as contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is too young, hence the matter needs reconsideration so far as quantum is concerned. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan & Ors. vs. J. Hussain reported in (2013) 10 SCC 106 wherein at para-15 it has been held that :- “15. The High Court has also mentioned in the impugned order that the respondent is a married man with family consisting of number of dependants and is suffering hardship because of the said “economic capital punishment”. However, such mitigating circumstances are to be looked into by the department authorities. It was not even pleaded before them and is an after-effect of the penalty. In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot be a ground for the Court to interdict the penalty. This is specifically held by this Court in Hombe Gowda Educational Trust v. State of Karnataka in the following words : (SCC p.437, para 20) “20. A person, when dismissed from service, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this Court.” 15. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a few recent decisions of this Court.” 15. In view of the settled proposition of law as has been indicated herein above, in my view, the order dated 17.3.2004 needs no interference and hence, this writ petition is dismissed.