JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has preferred for quashing of the Force Order No. 1530/2003 dated 29.11.2003, contained in memo No. 249 dated 22.09.2004 (Annexure-9), whereby the present petitioner has been dismissed in a departmental proceeding No. 07 of 2003, conducted against him and further prayer has been made for quashing/setting aside the Force Order No. 1110/2008, contained in memo No 1106 dated 30.05.2008, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the service. Further prayer has been made to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in JAP-5, Deoghar and was posted at Chanho Block Camp of Company ‘A’ of the said Armed Police. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted leave for 10 days by the Company Commandant, under his sign and seal from 12.04.2004 to 22.04.2004 and was expected to join his service on completion of leave on 23.04.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that he failed mentally ill and had undergone the treatment of psychiatrist, therefore, he could not present himself on duty. He remained under the treatment of psychiatrist from 20.04.2001 to 04.03.2003. As the petitioner did not present himself on duty on completion of the leave, he was put under suspension w.e.f. 23.04.2001 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge-sheet on 08.03.2003 vide memo No. 628. Charges against the petitioner were of indiscipline and dereliction of duty and of grave misconduct and also of unauthorized absence, on account of non-joining the service after expiry of the leave period. It has been further stated that petitioner could not join his service because of his mental illness as he was undergoing treatment at Ranchi Mansik Arogryasala, Kanke. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that a department proceeding bearing No. 07/2003 was initiated against the petitioner and a Conducting Officer was appointed. The Conducting Officer, after inquiry, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and on receipt of the opinion of the Conducting Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide Force Order No. 1530/2003 dated 29.11.2003 as contained in memo No. 249 dated 22.01.2004. 5. The Conducting Officer, after inquiry, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and on receipt of the opinion of the Conducting Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide Force Order No. 1530/2003 dated 29.11.2003 as contained in memo No. 249 dated 22.01.2004. 5. Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 3, the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, without considering the reply of the petitioner, affirmed the order of dismissal and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.05.2008 and hence, this writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 6. Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Bharti Kumari, submits that the inquiry stood vitiated having conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not even paid subsistence allowance at the time of suspension, which itself is a sufficient ground for setting aside the order of dismissal, as it has seriously prejudice the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have considered past conduct and previous absence of the petitioner, which was not an article of charge in the present proceeding and as such, the proceeding stood vitiated. Learned counsel further argued that there cannot be dismissal with retrospective effect, which is against the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of Patiala & Anr. Vrs. Ram Niwas Bansal (dead) through Legal Representatives, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 106 . 7. Learned counsel submits that the Disciplinary Authority has disbelieved the medical certificate of petitioner which has also not been considered by the Appellate Authority, which is completely illegal, as the said certificate was nowhere declared as forged or fabricated. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel that major punishment of dismissal has been issued without issuance of any second show-cause and is highly disproportionate as the only allegation was of unauthorized absence and there is no such allegation of misconduct relating to moral aptitude. As such, the order of dismissal be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 8. On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed. As such, the order of dismissal be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 8. On the other hand counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in a disciplined Force even absence of one day amounts to misconduct. In the instant case, petitioner has been absenting himself for two long years and in view of that, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel submits that the quantum of punishment inflicted on the petitioner is in consonance with the charges levelled against the petitioner. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel submits that the order of dismissal has rightly been passed and the impugned order does not warrant any interference. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order warrants no interference. Penalty of removal from service statutorily prescribed. It is for the employee to show how the penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been placed by the petitioner to show as to how the punishment could be categorized as disproportionate or shocking. On the contrary, the charge has been established in the disciplinary proceeding. In series of cases, the scope of interference with punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same. In catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in cases of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ]; State of U.P. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, [ (1996) 1 SCC 302 ]; and Om Kumar Vs. Union of India [ (2001) 2 SCC 386 ], the same ratio has been derived. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that order cannot be made retrospectively operative and as such, the dismissal is illegal, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of Patiala & Anr. Vrs. Ram Niwas Bansal (supra), is not well founded. It has been held in that case that order of dismissal cannot be made retrospectively operative but that will not invalidate the order of dismissal and it would only have the prospective effect. Vrs. Ram Niwas Bansal (supra), is not well founded. It has been held in that case that order of dismissal cannot be made retrospectively operative but that will not invalidate the order of dismissal and it would only have the prospective effect. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have taken into consideration the past conduct and previous absence of the petitioner, which was not an article of charge, is illegal. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also misconceived, as from a bare perusal of the charge itself it is crystal clear that it has been specifically mentioned that on three occasions earlier also the petitioner was charged of unauthorized leave, which is apparent from Annexure-5, page 28 of the writ petition. 11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that medical certificate was not considered and without coming to a finding that the said certificate was forged or obtained in lieu of consideration, without any valid reason, is illegal vide ratio Hon’ble Apex Court in case of M.G.B. Gramin Bank Vrs. Chhel Singh, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 160. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is also distinguished on the ground that in that case unauthorized absence was only of ten and half months and in the present case, the unauthorized absence is of two years. The certificate regarding mental illness were only produced. There was no intimation of leave on the ground of tuberculosis neither any certificate to that extent was ever produced in the departmental proceeding or before the Disciplinary Authority or before the Appellate Authority to prove his case in his favour. Even though there was no occasion to disbelieve the medical certificate regarding mental illness but in absence of any certificate regarding tuberculosis and the period of unauthorized absence for the treatment of tuberculosis, the same cannot be accepted and thus, his submission are not well founded and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel does not come to his rescue. The Inquiry Officer has come to the finding that the absence of the petitioner was willful and deliberate. 12. The Inquiry Officer has come to the finding that the absence of the petitioner was willful and deliberate. 12. In view of the fact that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope of interference in case of concurrent finding of the two Authorities and as such, the scope of judicial review is very limited and unless punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same, as held in case of Mithilesh Singh Vrs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 309. 13. Resultantly, the impugned order warrants no interference and the writ petition fails and stands dismissed.