JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Aggrieved by order dated 02.12.2016 in WP(S) No. 5290 of 2008 whereby, challenged by the writ petitioner to the order of termination from service has been rejected, the instant Letter Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. 2. Heard. 3. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner confined his submission to the question of quantum of punishment, awarded to the appellant. Referring to the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities, the learned senior counsel contends that the penalty of dismissal from service on the ground of unauthorized absence for 295 days, on the face of it, is so unreasonable and disproportionate to the charge framed and found proved against the appellant that it warrants interference of this Court. 4. As against the above, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned J.C. to A.G., defending the order of termination from service, submits that the appellant being a member of disciplined force has rightly been dismissed from service on account of his misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty. It is submitted that at no stage, information regarding illness of the appellant was given to the authorities and the treatment allegedly undertaken by the appellant during the period of unauthorized absence was not approved by the Department. 5. The appellant was appointed on the post of constable on 23.03.1985. While posted at Bokaro on 15.06.2003, he proceeded on 10 days' leave and he was to report for duty on 26.06.2003, however the appellant did not report for duty till 18.10.2003. He joined his duty on 17.04.2004 and he was served a charge memo on the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty between the period 26.06.2003 to 18.10.2003. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges framed against the appellant proved. The appellant took a plea that on 20.06.2003 he was treated by Dr. J.P. Sharma and subsequently, he was referred to a Neuro Psychiatrist for further treatment. The appellant was thereafter, treated by one Dr. Durga Bhagat, who treated him till April 2004 and after the said Doctor gave him a fitness certificate on 15th April 2004, he joined his duty on 17.04.2004. 6. J.P. Sharma and subsequently, he was referred to a Neuro Psychiatrist for further treatment. The appellant was thereafter, treated by one Dr. Durga Bhagat, who treated him till April 2004 and after the said Doctor gave him a fitness certificate on 15th April 2004, he joined his duty on 17.04.2004. 6. A perusal of the penalty order dated 12.09.2005 discloses that the Disciplinary Authority though, noticed the defence of the appellant, treatment of the appellant by private Doctors was doubted by the Disciplinary Authority because he was referred for treatment at RINPAS, a government hospital. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority both have proceeded in the similar manner disbelieving the defence taken by the appellant on the ground that instead of getting himself treated at RINPAS, he got himself treated from private Doctors. No doubt, the appellant remained absent from duty unauthorizedly and at any stage, he did not care to inform the Department about his treatment for chronic schizophrenia. Even the family members of the appellant did not inform the authorities about the on going treatment of the appellant under Doctor J.P. Sharma and Dr. Durga Bhagat however, considering the fact that the Departmental Authorities have not returned a finding that the Medical prescriptions of Dr. J.P. Sharma and Dr. Durga Bhagat produced by the appellant were forged or fabricated documents, penalty of dismissal from service inflicted upon an employee who had put in about 20 years of service, prima facie, appears to be unreasonable. In “Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors.”, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “21. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorised absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he did not have any intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company’s rules and regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations.” 7. The question of choice of punishment and the quantum of punishment are within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Departmental Authority, however it is also well recognized that the punishment should not be so disproportionate to the misconduct alleged as to shock the conscience of the Court. While dealing with the punishment imposed in Court Martial, in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that “the doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an 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 form correction” . Though, we find substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that being a members of the disciplined force, the appellant was required to maintain absolute discipline and devotion to the duty, the learned Single Judge has failed to advert to the quantum of punishment vis-a-vis misconduct of the appellant and accordingly, the impugned order dated 02.12.2015 warrants interference. Ordered accordingly. 8. Considering the fact that the respondents have not alleged previous misconduct of the appellant nor the medical certificates/prescriptions produced by the appellant have been found forged or fabricated, the penalty order dated 12.09.2005, which was affirmed by order dated 04.11.2006 by the appellate authority and by order dated 14.02.2008 by the Revisional Authority is hereby, quashed. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision on the question of punishment to be imposed upon the appellant. 9. The appeal, on hand, is allowed in the aforesaid terms.