ORDER : Raghavendra S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner has challenged the penalty order dated 23-7-2013 whereby the respondent No. 1 has imposed a penalty of stoppage of three annual increment with cumulative effect, and have directed to treat the suspended period as leave to the credit of the petitioner, and if leave is not available, then to treat the suspension period as leave without allowance. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23-5-2014 passed by the respondent No. 2, the Managing Director and Appellate Authority, Karnataka Electricity Supply Company Limited, whereby the Appellate Authority has confirmed the penalty order dated 23-7-2013. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent-organisation as Assistant Engineer in 1991. On 31-7-2012, while the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer in ALDC Branch, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited (for short, "the HESCOM"), at Hubli, suddenly, he had a toothache. Therefore, he had applied for casual leave. He contacted his Doctor in Mysore, who asked him to report to Mysore for his checkup. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a leave application through fax. However, during the period of absence, by order dated 29-9-2012, the petitioner was suspended from service. Subsequently, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, wherein it was alleged that he had been absent unauthorisedly for almost two months. According to the charges, he had left on casual leave on 30-7-2012. Subsequently, on 31-7-2012, he had submitted a leave application through fax requesting for leave on medical grounds from 1-8-2012 to 31-8-2012. Since he has not gotten the leave sanctioned from the Competent Authority before going on leave, and before handing over the charge, it was alleged that the petitioner had violated the procedure as per Regulations 106 to 120 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations, 1996. After holding a thorough enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Subsequently, a show-cause notice was issued. The petitioner replied to the same. But by order dated 23-7-2013, the Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, he filed a Departmental appeal. However, by order dated 23-5-2014, the Departmental appeal has been dismissed, and penalty order has been confirmed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. The petitioner replied to the same. But by order dated 23-7-2013, the Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority passed the penalty order. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the same, he filed a Departmental appeal. However, by order dated 23-5-2014, the Departmental appeal has been dismissed, and penalty order has been confirmed. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. M. Sivappa, learned Senior Counsel, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, there were valid reasons for absence of two months as the petitioner was suffering from medical difficulties. Even prior to leaving the Office, he had informed his Superior Officer that he is suffering from toothache, and that he needs to go to Mysore for his medical checkup. Secondly, that in the case of similarly situated colleague, Mr. V.S.K. Rangan, Superintending Engineer (Electricity), O and M, Sirsi, had also gone on long absence without obtaining prior sanction of leave, the respondents were magnanimous enough to exonerate him in the Departmental Enquiry. However, the same treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. Hence, the conduct of respondents suffers from being violative of right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, that the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of absence of two months without proper leave. Therefore, both the penalty order dated 23-7-2013 and order dated 23-5-2014 passed by the Appellate Authority deserve to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned Counsel, perused the record, and examined the impugned orders. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly reveal that the petitioner has not examined the Superior Officer as a witness during the course of the Departmental Enquiry to establish the fact that prior to leaving his post at Hubli, he had informed the Superior Officer about his casual leave. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Superior Officer was informed over telephone, such a plea was not established by the petitioner during the Departmental Enquiry. Hence, the said plea is unacceptable. 6. A bare perusal of the order dated 23-5-2014 clearly reveals that in his reply to the second show-cause notice, the petitioner had claimed that he had produced the medical certificate along with the leave note sent through fax. But the said stand, taken by' the petitioner, is contradictory to his initial stand taken before the respondents. 6. A bare perusal of the order dated 23-5-2014 clearly reveals that in his reply to the second show-cause notice, the petitioner had claimed that he had produced the medical certificate along with the leave note sent through fax. But the said stand, taken by' the petitioner, is contradictory to his initial stand taken before the respondents. In his initial reply, he had clearly stated that since the Doctor had informed him that he would give the medical certificate after the petitioner would recover, therefore, he was not in a position to send a medical certificate with his leave note which was sent through fax. Even otherwise, even during the Departmental Enquiry, he did not submit the medical certificate. Therefore, it is, indeed, difficult to believe that a person suffering from toothache requires a bed rest for two months. Therefore, the explanation given by the petitioner for being absent for two months is clearly untenable. 7. As far as disproportionateness of the punishment is concerned, suffice to mention that while the petitioner was absent for two months, notices were sent to him informing that his leave has not been sanctioned, and required to report immediately back to Hubli. Yet the petitioner has not bothered to reply to these notices. This casual attitude towards his responsibility, that too, being an Executive Engineer of Electricity Company, merely shows the great indiscipline in the petitioner's conduct. Needless to say, such absence not only adversely affects the performance of the Company, but also dilutes the reputation, and the goodwill of the Company. Therefore, the learned Counsel is not justified in claiming that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to compare the case of the petitioner to the case of one Mr. V.S.K. Rangan. However, there is no evidence on record to show the facts of the case of Mr. V.S.K. Rangan. Therefore, the comparison is merely imaginary, and not a substantive one. Needless to say, the case of misconduct has to be examined in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. V.S.K. Rangan. However, there is no evidence on record to show the facts of the case of Mr. V.S.K. Rangan. Therefore, the comparison is merely imaginary, and not a substantive one. Needless to say, the case of misconduct has to be examined in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, no universal principle of law can be laid down that in case an employee goes on long leave on medical grounds, then magnanimity should be shown by the respondents, even if a procedure established by Regulations 106 to 120 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' Service Regulations, 1996, is not followed by an employee. Therefore, the said contention is unacceptable. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the present petition; it is, hereby, dismissed.