ORDER : In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the order of dismissal dated 17.01.2008 issued by the Joint Secretary, Co-operative Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi and also for direction to the respondents to regularize the period of absence by granting leave on medical ground and other leave as may be permissible. 2. The facts as emanated in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Extension Supervisor in the year 1989. In the year, 2005 the petitioner was relieved by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Purnia to join the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand Ranchi on being allotted Jharkhand Cadre. While working as such, the petitioner suffered from Jaundice with Hepatitis-B. On 08.10.2005, he gave his joining at Ranchi, Jharkhand. Due to unauthorized absence from duty and despite of several notices in the newspaper, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.04.2006 as evident from Annexure-5. On the very same day, the departmental proceeding was initiated and charge was framed against the petitioner. In pursuance to the charges, the petitioner submitted his reply to the charges. The matter was inquired into by the inquiry officer and the inquiry officer conducted the inquiry holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges. On the basis of the inquiry report, a second show cause notice issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition and receipt of the second show cause notice, the petitioner replied the same and on 17.01.2008, the impugned order of punishment has been passed by the respondents as evident from Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-9, the petitioner has challenged the same in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. P. A. S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have mentioned in no uncertain terms that the petitioner was medically unfit but the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment imposing major punishment which is harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the alleged charges. 3. Mr. P. A. S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have mentioned in no uncertain terms that the petitioner was medically unfit but the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment imposing major punishment which is harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the alleged charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of punishment has been passed by the Joint Secretary who is not competent to pass such orders and as per the resolution no.1393 dated 01.08.2007 vide Annexure-T to the counter-affidavit, the competent authority for awarding major punishment is the Secretary. In the instant case, admittedly the Joint Secretary has passed the order and there is nothing on record to show that the approval of the Cabinet or the Secretary has been obtained prior to infliction of punishment vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has gone beyond the charges and the memo of charges does not refer to habitual absenteeism. On that score, the impugned order is assailable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to buttress his submissions has referred to paragraph 12 of the judgment in the case of Chhel Singh Vs. MGB Gramin Bank, Pali and Others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 166 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that it is neither a case of the disciplinary authority nor the inquiry officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though, he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the doctors without any valid reason. 4. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the doctors without any valid reason. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 wherein it has been submitted that after allocation of the Jharkhand Cadre, it was ordered that the payment of salary of the petitioner would be made from the date of his joining in the department dated 08.10.2005 and since the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from the duty and the chairman of Banari Lamps has reported the department vide letter dated 01.03.2006 that the withdrawal of deposited amount of the depositors under 'Mamavridihi Yojna' has hampered due to non-posting of member secretary in the said LAMPS as evident from Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that the District Co-operative Officer, Gumla has also informed on telephonic talk dated 23.03.2006 as enquired by the department that the petitioner has not joined to the said post and the District Co-operative Officer, Gumla ordered that if petitioner does not join to the post within a week inform the department in writing and ensure the internal arrangement for giving charge of Banari Lamps to any Co-operative Extension Officer till the petitioner joins the said post vide letter dated 04.04.2006 vide Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit. Since the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from the duty without any information so that works of the said LAMPS has been hampered and for the charges of indiscipline, non-compliance of department order, undutiful and arbitrariness, the petitioner has rightly been suspended vide order dated 08.04.2006 and the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner for such misconduct and negligence and carelessness in his duty and for long absence without any information. The conducting officer was submitted inquiry report then after basing on the inquiry report, second show notice has been issued to the petitioner. Finally, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. 5. Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C (L & C) for the respondents-State submits that there is absolutely no infirmities so far as disciplinary proceeding is concerned from the date of initiation of proceeding till its culmination. Moreover due to unauthorized absence from duty, the work of the society was hampered. Finally, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. 5. Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C (L & C) for the respondents-State submits that there is absolutely no infirmities so far as disciplinary proceeding is concerned from the date of initiation of proceeding till its culmination. Moreover due to unauthorized absence from duty, the work of the society was hampered. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the findings of the inquiry officer has been taken into consideration and thereafter the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3, wherein it has been submitted that the approval of the Ministry was not required as evident from the memo No.1393 dated 01.08.2007 issued by the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Govt. of Jharkhand Rule 22(KH) which is evident from Annexure-T of the counter-affidavit. 7. After giving my anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar and on perusal of the relevant records, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and judicial pronouncements stated here-in-below: (i) In the case in hand, while the petitioner was continuing as Co-operative Extension Officer which is a Class III (Non-gazetted) post. Because of his unauthorized absence from duty, he was placed under suspension on 08.04.2006 and on the very same day, the charges has been framed against the petitioner. On the perusal of the inquiry report, it appears that the inquiry officer has taken note of the fact that the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice (Hepatitis-B) and the inquiry report also does not dispute nor reveals that the certificate has produced forged and fabricated. The veracity of the documents of medical certificates has not disputed by the inquiry officer though the finding of the inquiry officer was to the effect that the petitioner did not inform regarding the illness to the competent authority. Though, absence of the petitioner from duty cannot be construed to be unauthorized nor it can be described as willful or deliberate. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Though, absence of the petitioner from duty cannot be construed to be unauthorized nor it can be described as willful or deliberate. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India And Another at para 19 reads as under:- “19. In the present case the inquiry officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence was wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty. and also the decisions cited in the case of Chhel Singh (Supra) by the counsel for the petitioner also supports the case of the petitioner. (ii) On perusal of findings of the inquiry report vis-a-vis the punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, it appears that the punishment imposed is harsh, excessive, disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Therefore, the case of the petitioner needs to be considered by the competent authority on the ground of quantum of punishment. In the case of chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and excluded irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. 21. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized 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.” It has been raised by the petitioner is that impugned order of punishment has been passed by an authority which is not competent to pass the order as per the resolution impugned in Annexure-T to the counter-affidavit. Therefore, on that score also the impugned order of punishment is not sustainable. (iii) In view of the aforesaid reasons as a result of the cumulative effect of the aforesaid reasons coupled with judicial pronouncements, the impugned order of punishment dated 17.01.2008 vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition being not legally sustainable, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to consider the matter afresh on the question of quantum of punishment and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible in accordance with rules within a reasonable time preferably period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 8. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions.