JUDGMENT : C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. This Writ Appeal is filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Chennai and the Commandant, 18 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Thura, Meghalaya State-the respondents in Writ Petition No.16104 of 2003 feeling aggrieved by order, dated 02.3.2016, passed in the said Writ Petition by the learned single Judge. 2. We have heard Mrs. S. Siva Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The undisputed facts, briefly stated, are that while working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force at Thura in Meghalaya State, the respondent was granted Casual leave for 15 days, excluding Sundays, Restricted Holidays (RH) and General Holidays (GH), during the month of September, 2001, for going to his native place. The reason for sanction of leave was his wifes ill-health. The respondent has, admittedly, overstayed his leave by 136 days and reported to duty on 06.3.2002. During the overstayal of his leave, he has received two letters, i.e., letters, dated 25.10.2001 and 18.11.2001, from his superiors, where under he was reminded of his overstay with a request to him to join the duty. The respondent has not given any reply to these letters and reported to duty only on 06.3.2002. After he was admitted to duty, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, where under the following charges were framed: "Article-I: That No.941130245 CT/GD K.Ravinder of A/18BN CRPF while performing the duties on CT/GD during October, 2001 committed an offence of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section-11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he overstayed from 20 days enhanced casual leave w.e.f. 22.10.2001 without any sanction of leave from competent authority and continue to OSL till 08.3.2002. Article-II: That during the aforesaid period and while functioning as LT/CD in A/18BN, CRPF, the said No.941130245 CT/GD K. Ravinder has committed an act of disobedience of order in his capacity as a member of the Force under Section- 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he disobeyed the orders of C.C. A/18BN, Vide his letter No.L.II.1/CIA/18, dated 25.10.2001 and 18.11.2001 directing him to report for duties." 4. The respondent has filed the Statement of defence, wherein he has assigned two reasons for his overstay-first, the illness of his wife, and the second, certain family disputes. The respondent has filed the Statement of defence, wherein he has assigned two reasons for his overstay-first, the illness of his wife, and the second, certain family disputes. In the enquiry, the employer has examined three witnesses. The respondent has not cross-examined any of these witnesses. Except filing a certificate, dated 20.02.2002, given by the Sarpanch of the Amradikalan Gram Panchayat, marked as Ex.B-1, the respondent has not adduced any other evidence including oral evidence. 5. A perusal of the enquiry report shows that during the enquiry, the respondent has pleaded guilty of both the charges framed against him. Indeed, he has not disputed this finding in the enquiry report. From the record, it is also not disputed that on an earlier occasion, he has overstayed his leave and a minor punishment of seven days confinement was imposed on him for the said misconduct. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer finding the respondent guilty of both the charges, appellant No.2 has inflicted the punishment of removal from service. The appeal filed by the respondent challenging the said punishment was also rejected by appellant No.1. Assailing both these orders, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.16104 of 2003. 6. The only submission of substance advanced by the respondent before the learned single Judge, as evident from the order under appeal, is that the punishment inflicted on him is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The learned single Judge, impressed with this plea, allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order of removal and directed his reinstatement without back wages, but with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits, while giving liberty to the appellants to decide on the imposition of minor punishment on the respondent for the proven misconduct. 7. On a careful reading of the reasons assigned in the order of the learned single Judge, we are unable to accept the same. 8. The respondent is a member of a disciplined force. He is not expected to overstay his leave except due to circumstances beyond his control. Though the respondent has taken the aforementioned two pleas seeking to justify his overstay in his defence statement, viz., his wifes ill-health and family disputes, no shred of evidence such as medical record was filed by him in support of his plea of his wifes ill-health. Though the respondent has taken the aforementioned two pleas seeking to justify his overstay in his defence statement, viz., his wifes ill-health and family disputes, no shred of evidence such as medical record was filed by him in support of his plea of his wifes ill-health. As regards the second plea, a Sarpanchs certificate which was wholly irrelevant was filed. Even during enquiry, he has admitted his guilt. 9. Mr. K. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, placed heavy reliance on the judgment, dated 31.8.2007 of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.5226 of 2005 in Satender Pal Singh v. Union of India. 10. In that case, the Constable overstayed for 17 days and in the past, he overstayed for 13 times. Considering those facts, the Delhi High Court has made the following observations: "If a person (sic is) allowed to remain absent from duty for which he has no explanation much less cogent explanation, there would be more people enjoying the comforts of their home and the company of their families than serving on the borders or keeping vigil in disturbed areas where they are supposed to be posted. Discipline is the very foundation of any armed force." 11. Having made such observations, the Court has condoned the conduct of the Constable in overstaying for 17 days and set aside the order of removal from service. The learned single Judge was, obviously, impressed by the fact that in the case decided by the Delhi High Court, the Constable has previously overstayed for 13 times. 12. In our opinion, the decision taken by the Delhi High Court on the facts of that case cannot be taken as a ratio ignoring the facts in the present case, where. not only that the respondent has overstayed for 136 days, but has also displayed unjustifiable conduct of not even responding to the two letters, dated 25.10.2001 and 18.11.2001, addressed by his superiors reminding him of his overstayal and requiring him to join the duty. 13. With due respect to the opinion expressed by the Delhi High Court in Satender Pal Singh (1 supra), we are unable to subscribe to its view to the extent of interference with the informed decision taken by the employer removing a Constable for overstaying his duties, especially, when his conduct was incorrigible. 14. 13. With due respect to the opinion expressed by the Delhi High Court in Satender Pal Singh (1 supra), we are unable to subscribe to its view to the extent of interference with the informed decision taken by the employer removing a Constable for overstaying his duties, especially, when his conduct was incorrigible. 14. The judgment in Union of India v. Giriraj Sharma, 1994 AIR (SC) 215, which was referred to by the learned single Judge, cannot be relied upon on the facts of the present case. In that case, the Constable overstayed his leave by 12 days and during that period, he has even sent a telegram with an explanation, which was rejected. 15. Indeed, this is a converse case, where not only that the respondent has not made any request during his overstay of 136 days but also he failed to respond to the two letters received by him from his superiors, as noted hereinbefore. 16. It is a settled position of law that the scope of interference with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority by the High Court under Article-226 of the Constriction of India is limited to examining whether the decision suffers from any patent illegalities, proven mala fides or findings not being based on any evidence. While exercising the writ jurisdiction, this Court will not sit in appeal and act as an appellate body. Even where two views are possible, the Court will not interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority merely because it prefers to follow another view. (See Union of India v. Tulsiram patel, (1985)3 SCC 398 .) 17. As regards the plea taken by the respondent that the punishment imposed on him being disproportionate to the proven misconduct, the Courts cannot lightly interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it shocks the judicial conscience. 18. Dealing with the disciplinary force, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Datta Linga Toshatwad, (2005) 13 SCC 709 , held that the members of the uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on these forces. That such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces and the uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation. That such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will greatly affect the discipline of the forces and the uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days must be able to give a satisfactory explanation. The Supreme Court has, accordingly, declined to interfere with the order of removal holding that such a punishment is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be described as disproportionate to the alleged proven misconduct. 19. In DG, RPF Et & others v. Ch.Sai Babu, (2003) 4 SCC 331 , the Supreme Court held that the High Courts shall not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless the same is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of proven misconduct. 20. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Supreme Court held that while exercising the power under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts have to bear in mind the restraints inherent in exercising the power of judicial review and the substitution of the High Courts view regarding appropriate punishment is not permissible. 21. Similar view was taken in UOI v. Mohd. Rafia Ali Ahmed, 1999 SCC (L&S) 634. 22. In UOI & Ors. v. G. Ganayutham, 1997 (7) SCC 463 , the Supreme Court held that the Courts would not interfere with the administrators decision unless it was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was irrational, in the sense, that it was an outrageous defiance of logic or moral standards. 23. In the light of the above-mentioned decisions and having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the gravity of misconduct admitted by the respondent warrants the punishment of removal from service and such a punishment could not have been interfered with by the learned single Judge. 24. For the afore-mentioned reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 25. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, WAMP.No.1799 of 2016 filed by the appellants for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.