ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of Indian and other respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant 10 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.R.P.F’). 82 Miles, Nalkata, Tripura dated 07.11.2006, whereby punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon him. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the orders dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Durgapur (West Bengal) and the order dated 07.04.2011 passed by Inspector General of Police, Eastern Sector, C.R.P.F., H.C. Block Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata, 106 (West Bengal) whereby the petitioner’s appeal and revision preferred against the said order of dismissal have also been rejected. 3. The petitioner was appointed as constable in C.R.P.F. on 13.06.1985 and he continued in C.R.P.F. till 07.11.2006. In the meanwhile, he was granted promotion to the post of Head Constable. On the charge that he had overstayed even after expiry of the period of leave sanctioned to him, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, with the issuance of the chargesheet. The sole charge against him reads as follows:- “That the said No. 850830315 HC (GD) Nageswar Ojha of F/10 Bn C.R.P.F. while functioning as HC (GD) committed an act of ‘Misconduct’ in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act 1949 in that he was sanctioned 15 days Leave Kind Due (LKD) w.e.f. 12/09/05 to 26/09/05, but he overstayed from leave w.e.f. 27/09/05 and still overstaying at his own without any permission /sanction of leave from the competent authority which is prejudiced to the good order and discipline of the force.” 4. There is no allegation against him beyond the charge that he overstayed after availing the leave. After holding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the said charge proved. Agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service with stipulation that the period of unauthorized absence from 27.09.2005 to 07.11.2006 will be treated as DIES NON. 5. After holding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the said charge proved. Agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed upon the petitioner, the punishment of removal from service with stipulation that the period of unauthorized absence from 27.09.2005 to 07.11.2006 will be treated as DIES NON. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner has lost mental balance and my attention has been drawn to a letter written by the Officer-in-Charge Natwar, District-Rohtas, dated 12.03.2008 addressed to the Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Amrabati, Durgapur, communicating to the fact that petitioner’s wife had intimated the Police that petitioner was missing, during relevant point of time and no information with respect to the petitioner was available even with the family members of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner’s case is that it was not because of any motive or intentional act that the petitioner had overstayed, rather it was because of his mental condition that he could not report joining after availing the leave. It appears that challenging the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 13897 of 2009 which was disposed of by an order dated 27.10.2009 requiring the petitioner to challenge the order of disciplinary authority by filing a memo of appeal before the appellate authority. The Court while disposing of the said writ application made following observations:- I. “The appellate authority should consider the submission made in the memo of appeal in accordance with law. II. Taking a “lenient” view in the matter. ” 7. I have perused the appellate order which is under challenge. The said appellate order does not discuss the submission of petitioner in his memo of appeal. It vaguely refers the proceeding conducted by the disciplinary authority and the Enquiry Officer. This Court, in its earlier order dated 27.10.2009 had given an indication, taking into account the facts in its entirety, that a lenient view should be taken. There is no discussion in the appellate order or even any revisional order that lenient view in the facts and circumstances of the case could not be possibly taken by the authorities. This Court, in its earlier order dated 27.10.2009 had given an indication, taking into account the facts in its entirety, that a lenient view should be taken. There is no discussion in the appellate order or even any revisional order that lenient view in the facts and circumstances of the case could not be possibly taken by the authorities. In my opinion, appellant authority as well as revisional authority were required to be given due regard to the observations made by the Court in the order dated 27.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13897 of 2009. Further, as I have indicated above, I find that the appellate authority had not duly considered the submissions of the petitioner in his memo of appeal, while rejecting the petitioner’s appeal, though in revisional order, I find some consideration. In any event, the appellate authority was required to give due regard to the observation made by this Court for taking lenient view in the matter particularly, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner that it was not his deliberate act amounting to misconduct resulting into his overstaying, rather it was because of his unstable state of mind. The authorities were required to consider this aspect. 8. In view of the facts as noted above, I consider it appropriate to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for re-consideration of the petitioner’s appeal. It is expected that the appellate authority shall consider the submissions made in the memo of appeal and take a lenient view of the matter as observed by this Court in its previous order dated 27.10.2009. Needless to say that if the said appellate order goes against the petitioner, he shall have the liberty to approach the revisional authority afresh. 9. The petitioner is according remanded back to the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Durgapur, West Bengal. The orders dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Durgapur, West Bengal and 07.04.2011 passed by the Inspector General of Police (Eastern Sector), Central Reserve Police Force, H.C. Block Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkota-106 (West Bengal) are set aside. 10. The Respondent No. 4, the appellate authority is directed to pass an order afresh on petitioner’s appeal within three months from the date of receipt / communication of this order. 10. The Respondent No. 4, the appellate authority is directed to pass an order afresh on petitioner’s appeal within three months from the date of receipt / communication of this order. It is clarified that nature of punishment which can be imposed on an employee is absolutely a prerogative of the appointing authority or any superior authority authorized in that behalf. This court ordinarily does not substitute opinion in such matters in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellate authority or the revisional authority in the present case, will be at liberty to take proper decision and it will be open to them to get the petitioner examined by appropriate medical board in view of the defence taken by him, which has been noted above in the present order.