JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arnab Banerji, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Ram Bharosey Lal is before this Court for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, C & W Depot, Izzat Nagar-respondent no.5, which was communicated by the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Gorakhpur vide letters dated 28.9.2011 and 12.10.2011. He has further prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to regularize his services retrospectively with all the consequential benefits with arrears accrued thereupon with interest. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Carriage Khalasi in Izzat Nagar Division, North Eastern Railway on 26.10.1983. He was promoted as Technician Grade-III on 26.9.1990, Technician Grade-II on 26.2.1996, Technician Grade-I on 25.8.1999 and thereafter on the post of Junior Engineer-II (C &W) vide DRM Office Order dated 25.6.2004 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-. He had proceeded to avail two days casual leave on 9.7.2004 and 10.7.2004 and absconded himself unauthorizedly from duties. A notice on Standard Form-5 was sent to the petitioner by respondent no.5 on 13.7.2005, which was served on the petitioner on 21.7.2005. After issuance of Form-5, the petitioner joined his duties on 5.6.2006 in the office of Senior Section Engineer, Kasganj. Even after receiving the Standard Form 5 served, the petitioner did not file any defence. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the enquiry officer was nominated on 12.1.2006 to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The enquiry officer vide letters dated 14.1.2006, 5.2.2006, 24.2.2006 and 23.3.2006 intimated the petitioner to nominate the defence counsel, in case he is desirous to attend the enquiry proceedings on the date fixed. Thereafter the enquiry officer fixed 13.3.2006 as the date for enquiry but despite the service of notice, the petitioner did not present himself before the enquiry officer. The next date of enquiry was fixed on 5.4.2006 and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.3.2006 but the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer nor any information was given by him for not appearing on the said date. The next date of enquiry was fixed on 5.4.2006 and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.3.2006 but the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer nor any information was given by him for not appearing on the said date. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted in absence of the petitioner by examining prosecution witnesses and upon perusal of the material evidence on record as well as official records produced by the prosecution witnesses. The enquiry in question was concluded on 20.4.2006 and all the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. 4. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alongwith the enquiry report, which was served by registered post vide office letter dated 9.5.2006. After receipt of the enquiry report dated 20.4.2006, the petitioner filed a representation dated 20.6.2006. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the respondent no.5 passed an order dated 25.8.2006 by which the petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 27.9.2006 before the Divisional Rail Manager, North Eastern Railway, Izzat Nagar. By the order dated 26.10.2006 the Appellate Authority after considering the appeal of the petitioner sympathetically reduced the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred a revision on 3.4.2007 against the said appellate order before the General Manager, Mechanical, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. By the order dated 22.10.2006 the Revisional Authority reduced the punishment of the petitioner to lower time scale pay, grade, post or service. The petitioner refused to join his duties in the reduced lower time scale and filed applications dated 24.6.2011, 27.6.2011 and 28.10.2011 before the respondents. The respondents again informed the petitioner to join his duties as per order of the revisional authority dated 22.10.2007 but the petitioner did not join his duties and filed the present writ petition challenging the orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner was found medically fit, he was permitted to join the department on 26.5.2006 and he continued on the said post till removal of his services. The impugned order dated 22.10.2007 was passed without following the principle of natural justice. The petitioner has not been served any preliminary enquiry report before awarding major penalty. The impugned order dated 22.10.2007 was passed without following the principle of natural justice. The petitioner has not been served any preliminary enquiry report before awarding major penalty. The departmental enquiry was held ex-parte without taking the statement of the petitioner and other witnesses and no witness has been cross-examined during the course of the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority issued a notice for imposing major penalty of removal from service and in the major penalty memorandum, there was only one charge levelled against him for remaining absence from 11.7.2004 to 13.7.2005. The petitioner preferred the appeal and the appellate authority without considering the misconduct, has reduced the punishment from removal from service to compulsory retirement without considering the gravity of misconduct. The revisional authority has imposed punishment by reverting him one initial stage permanently from compulsory retirement. 6. Shri Arnab Banerji, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the case of the petitioner was duly considered sympathetically and the punishment was reduced at every level. The petitioner had unauthorizedly absented from duties from 11.7.2004 without any sanctioned leave and despite letters received from the department, he never informed regarding his unauthorized absence from his duties. The enquiry proceedings were initiated and full opportunity was given to him to submit his defence but he did not choose to appear before the enquiry officer and as such, the punishment order has been rightly passed against the petitioner. The appellate authority reduced the punishment from removal of services to compulsory retirement. The revisional authority after considering the case of the petitioner sympathetically had rightly reduced the punishment of compulsory retirement to reverting the petitioner from Technician Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 on basic pay of Rs.4600/- permanently till retirement. He submits that all the orders are legal, valid and justified and call for no interference by this Court. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. This much is reflected from the record in question that the petitioner had unauthorizedly absented from duties from 11.7.2004 and despite letters received from the department, he did not inform regarding his unauthorized absence from duties. The enquiry proceedings were initiated and full opportunity was given to him but he did not appear before the enquiry officer. 8. This much is reflected from the record in question that the petitioner had unauthorizedly absented from duties from 11.7.2004 and despite letters received from the department, he did not inform regarding his unauthorized absence from duties. The enquiry proceedings were initiated and full opportunity was given to him but he did not appear before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer submitted the report in which charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter, by the order dated 25.8.2006 the petitioner was removed from service. He filed an appeal on 27.9.2006 and taking sympathetic view, the appellate authority vide its order dated 26.10.2006 reduced the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred a revision on 3.4.2007 against the said appellate order and taking further lenient view the revisional authority vide its order dated 22.10.2006 reduced the punishment of the petitioner to lower time scale pay, grade, post or service. The petitioner refused to join his duties in the reduced lower time scale and filed applications dated 24.6.2011, 27.6.2011 and 28.10.2011 before the respondents. The respondents again informed the petitioner to join his duties as per order of the revisional authority dated 22.10.2007 but he did not join his duties and challenged the orders in this writ petition. 9. In Air India Ltd v. Cochin International Airport Ltd and ors, AIR 2000 SC 801 , Hon'ble Supreme Court, explaining the scope of judicial review, held that the court must act with great caution and should exercise such power only in furtherance to public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court must always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. 10. In Ranjit thakur vs. Union of India & ors, AIR 1987 SC 2386 , the Supreme Court observed as under:- “But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on the aspect, which is otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. In the present case, the punishment is so stringently disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review.” 11. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and ors, AIR 1996 SC 484 , Hon'ble Apex Court after examining various its earlier decisions observed that in exercise of the powers of judicial review, the court cannot “normally” substitute its own conclusion or penalty. However, if the penalty imposed by an authority “shocks the conscience” of the court, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation, itself, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of proportionality, court can also consider the circumstances under which the misconduct was committed. In a given case, the prevailing circumstances might have forced the accused to act in a certain manner though he had not intended to do so. The court may further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or substituted by some other penalty. However, it is only in very rare cases that the court might, to shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the Competent Authority. 12. The court may further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or substituted by some other penalty. However, it is only in very rare cases that the court might, to shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the Competent Authority. 12. In V. Ramana v. A.P.S.T.T.C. & ors, AIR 2005 SC 3417 , the Supreme Court considered the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found that it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges and if the court comes to the conclusion that the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found to be ?shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.? In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. 13. In State of Meghalaya & ors v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, AIR 2008 SC 2862 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a Court or a Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate with the proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocks the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. 14. In Union of India & ors v. R.K. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 3053 , Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the observations made in Ranjit Thakur (supra) observing that if the charge was ridiculous, the punishment was harsh or strikingly disproportionate it would warrant interference. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur (supra) are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. However, the said observations in Ranjit Thakur (supra) are not to be taken to mean that a court can, while exercising the power of judicial review, interfere with the punishment merely because it considers the punishment to be disproportionate. It was held that only in extreme cases, which on their face, show perversity or irrationality, there could be judicial review and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate grounds. 15. The Court must keep in mind that judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge, as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court cannot arrive on its own independent finding. 16. The Court can exercise the power of judicial review, if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise of power would stand vitiated. The court may be justified in exercising the power of judicial review if the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the order had been passed by the authority beyond the limits conferred upon the authority by the legislature. Thus, the court has to be satisfied that the order had been passed by the authority only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety before it interferes. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and interfering with the order of the authority may impose heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead to unbudgeted expenditure. 17. The role of the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclining to interfere with the impugned order. However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the petitioner makes an application alongwith certified copy of the order within two weeks from today, the authority concerned will take appropriate decision, sympathetically, as per order of the revisional authority dated 22.10.2006, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 19. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.