Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing punishment order dated 21.01.2008 whereby the petitioner has been discharged from the services and appellate order dated 05.06.2008 as well as memorial order dated 20.12.2008, whereby the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed, with all consequential benefits. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that petitioner was appointed as 'Cook' in Jharkhand Armed Police at Jamshedpur on 04.01.2001 on compassionate ground. It is stated that on the ground of illness of his mother, the petitioner was granted 10 days leave but he did not join on scheduled arrival time and joined his duty after delay of 40 days due to prolonged illness of his mother. It has further been stated that after resuming his duties, the petitioner was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against him, which culminated in the impugned punishment, which is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that over-stay of the petitioner is not willful and due to illness of his mother, he could not join his duties and it is not the case where the delinquent-petitioner proceeded to leave without sanction rather it is a case of over-stay, that too, with valid reason and in support thereof, the petitioner has submitted Medical Certificate of his mother's illness before the authorities concerned. Since, the overstay is not intentional, the same does not come under the definition of misconduct as per Rule 843 the Police Manual. It has further been submitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated on vague charges and the enquiry officer after examining only one witness has given its finding without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Besides, the conducting officer did not furnish copy of his findings to commandant before passing final order of punishment, thereby violated Rule 828 of the Police Manual. It has further been submitted that the Commandant, J.A.P-5 without scrutinizing the findings of the conducting officer agreed with the conducting officer and awarded extreme punishment of discharge from services without asking for second show notice, which is violative of Rule 828 (b) of the Police Manual. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the alleged charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the alleged charge. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Another Vs. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan as reported in (2011) 13 SCC 541 and further in the case of Jai Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner & Ors as reported in (2013) 11 SCC 187 . 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that after availing 10 days casual leave, when the petitioner was not join his duty, a notice was sent by registered post at his native place, which returned with a postal remarks that the petitioner did not found continuously in his house. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension vide memo dated 06.07.2007 and letter was sent by special messenger at his native place, only then the petitioner resumed his duties after delay of 40 days. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated, in which, one witness was examined but the petitioner declined to cross-examine the witness. It has further been submitted that the conducting officer enquired into the matter and opined that petitioner since his appointment on 04.01.2001 has absented himself 11 times from his duties and declared four times absconder. It has further been submitted that the process of departmental proceeding has been exhausted and the petitioner was instructed repeatedly to be present in his duties but he failed to remain present in the office and even after notice, which was sent through special messenger, the petitioner did not make any statement in his defense, which established the arrogance of the petitioner, hence, just punishment has been awarded to the petitioner, which never warrants any interference. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I). It is an admitted case that the petitioner proceeded on leave after proper sanction, but, he over-stayed for 40 days due to illness of his mother and due to some family dispute, in support thereof, the petitioner has submitted medical certificate. It is an admitted case that the petitioner proceeded on leave after proper sanction, but, he over-stayed for 40 days due to illness of his mother and due to some family dispute, in support thereof, the petitioner has submitted medical certificate. From perusal of memo of charge, it appears that besides the allegation of overstay of 40 days, there is further allegation that the petitioner previously over-stayed for 11 times and has been declared four times absconder. So far as the allegation of over-stay is concerned, on perusal of medical certificates, there is reason to believe that the petitioner has good and valid reason for over-stay, but he failed to intimate to the authorities concerned for extension of his leave, for which, the punishment awarded appears to be on higher side. (ii). Furthermore, there appears to be procedural irregularities in the departmental enquiry as neither enquiry report was supplied nor before passing the major punishment of discharge from service second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, which is in utter violation of Rule 828 (b) of the Police Manual. (iii).In view of the fact that absence does not appears to be be wilful and there are glaring procedural irregularities in conducting the departmental proceeding, the extreme punishment of discharge from duty appears to be shockingly disproportionate. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with judicial pronouncements as enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order of punishment dated 21.01.2008 whereby the petitioner has been discharged from the services and appellate order dated 05.06.2008 as well as memorial order dated 20.12.2008 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh mainly on the question of quantum of punishment taking into account the observations made by this Court, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.