JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 16.09.2013 passed in WP(C) 1936/2006. Late Anil Kalita was the original writ petitioner in the said WP(C) 1936/2006 and on his demise during the pendency of the case, his wife substituted herself in the proceeding. The writ petition having been dismissed, hence the present appeal by the wife. 2. Late Anil Kalita was employed as a Driver and he was proceeded against in D/P No. 5/2004 at a time when he was posted at No. 7 Platoon Camp at Bn. Headquarter, Howli. A notice was issued requiring Late Anil Kalita to show cause as to why penalty under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-III and Article 311 of the Constitution of India should not be imposed upon him. Late Anil Kalita was charged with unauthorised absence from the Platoon with effect from 23.05.2004. No leave or permission was obtained from the competent authority. The three notices addressed to Late Anil Kalita dated 25.05.2004, 29.06.2004 and 10.08.2004, through the local In-charge concerned, were not acted upon. He neither reported at the Bn. Headquarter nor made correspondence and remained absent until 03.09.2004. Accordingly, he was charged with indiscipline, wilful negligence and dereliction of duty rendering him liable to punishment. 3. From the records it is revealed that Late Anil Kalita was placed under suspension by Order dated 29.08.2004 and that he had received the Show Cause Notice on 25.09.2004. For the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding, an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 19.07.2005. Late Anil Kalita participated in the proceeding and was present when five witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Records also reveal that Late Anil Kalita had declined to cross-examine the witnesses. During the proceedings the statement of Late Anil Kalita was recorded and in his defence he stated to the effect that he had remained absent from duty from 23.05.2004 as during that time he was under treatment as a patient suffering from Tuberculosis and that he had informed the authority about his indisposition through a letter. The Enquiry Officer in his Report concluded that charge against Late Anil Kalita stood proved that he was unauthorisedly absent from 23.05.2004 to 29.06.2004 (sic). 4. The Enquiry Officer in his Report concluded that charge against Late Anil Kalita stood proved that he was unauthorisedly absent from 23.05.2004 to 29.06.2004 (sic). 4. The disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, 4th Assam Police Task Force Bn., Howli issued Order dated 23.10.2005 removing him from service with immediate effect. 5. Arguments advanced on behalf of the delinquent in the writ proceeding was primarily on the penalty of removal from service being disproportionately excessive. It was contended that the delinquent had remained absent unauthorisedly only for 36 days and, therefore, the order of removal being in excess was required to be interfered with. Reliance in this regard was placed in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Rawel Singh, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 42 . 6. The learned Single Judge found from evidence on record that Late Anil Kalita was unauthorisedly absent from duty w.e.f. 23.05.2004 and at least until the date of issuance of the suspension order i.e. 29.08.2004. Relying on the Apex Court’s decision in Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2003) 3SC 309, which propounds that unauthorised absence from duty by a member of a disciplined force may entail penalty of removal from service, the writ petition was dismissed as being without any merit. It was also observed that the case in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) was not attracted in the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. Before this Court, Mr. R.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant have advanced similar arguments as to the penalty being disproportionately excessive. Reliance is also placed in the aforesaid case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra). He submits that Late Anil Kalita was absent only for 36 days and the same has its basis in the Report of the Enquiry Officer. 8. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned senior Government Advocate, Assam submits that records clearly show that Late Anil Kalita was unauthorisedly absent with effect from 23.05.2004 to 29.08.2004, which covers an approximate period of 96 days. He also submits that having regard to the Apex Court’s decision in Mithilesh Singh (supra) as well as in the case of Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228 , the order of removal from service cannot be faulted, more so when Late Anil Kalita belonged to a disciplined force. 9. He also submits that having regard to the Apex Court’s decision in Mithilesh Singh (supra) as well as in the case of Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228 , the order of removal from service cannot be faulted, more so when Late Anil Kalita belonged to a disciplined force. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 10. In the enquiry proceedings Late Anil Kalita stated that he was absent from 23.05.2004. Although the Enquiry Officer held that he was absent from 23.05.2004 to 29.06.2004, there is no denying the fact that he was absent until the date he was placed under suspension i.e. 29.08.2004, which brings the period to about 96 days of unauthorised absence. The reason for the absence was explained by Late Anil Kalita during the disciplinary proceeding, which was also recorded by the Enquiry Officer. He had stated that he was under treatment of one Dr. Kanak Baruah as he was suffering from Tuberculosis. In his explanation he had also stated that his health status was informed to the concerned Respondent through a letter. Anil Kalita eventually died on 27.10.2006 due to ailment, leaving behind the appellant and two minor children. 11. Removal from service is a major penalty in terms of Rule 66 of Assam Police Manual, Part-III. The penalty was imposed upon conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings where the charge framed against the delinquent was held proved. Indeed, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and it is not for this Court to go into the adequacy or reliability of evidence leading to the punishment. However, in a given case where the quantum of punishment is found to be excessive to the extent of shocking the judicial conscience, the High Court can mould the relief either by directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or in exceptional cases by itself imposing an appropriate punishment by recording reasons. The essence is to do complete justice. 12. Turning to the Apex Court’s decision relied upon by the parties, at the outset we hold that the case in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) is not attracted to the facts of this case. Matter pertains to unauthorised absence in a disciplined force. Late Anil Kalita was a Driver in the Assam Police Task Force Bn., Howli. 12. Turning to the Apex Court’s decision relied upon by the parties, at the outset we hold that the case in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (supra) is not attracted to the facts of this case. Matter pertains to unauthorised absence in a disciplined force. Late Anil Kalita was a Driver in the Assam Police Task Force Bn., Howli. The adjudication of this appeal is only confined to the issue whether the unauthorised absence of 96 days entailed imposition of the severest penalty of removal from service and on that count whether the penalty was disproportionate and/or excessive. To reiterate, Late Anil Kalita had participated in the disciplinary proceedings where he explained the reason for his absence as being on account of Tuberculosis and that he had also informed the authority about his ailment. There is no record to show that the statement so recorded received consideration. Fact remains that such ailment also proved fatal. 13. In Mithilesh Singh (supra) the Apex Court was seized with a situation where the appellant therein had served as a Constable in the Railway Protection Special Force at Taran Taran in Punjab, a terrorist-affected area. He not only left duties without permission but also left the arms and ammunition unguarded and did not deposit the same in any proper custody. Although Mithilesh Singh was unauthorisedly absent for about 25 days, the Apex Court observed that his conduct of leaving back arms and ammunition unguarded and not in proper custody aggravated the aberrations. In this circumstance the order of removal from service of Mithilesh Singh was not found to be vitiated. The Apex Court also observed that it is for the employee concerned to place mitigating circumstances to show as to how the punishment could be characterised as disproportionate and/or shocking. 14. In Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra), the employee concerned was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and at the relevant time was serving at Srinagar. He had overstayed leave for 315 days without prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. 14. In Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra), the employee concerned was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and at the relevant time was serving at Srinagar. He had overstayed leave for 315 days without prior permission or sanction from the competent authority. The appeal filed by the Union of India against the judgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court whereby the order of removal from service was held to be without jurisdiction, the same was answered by the Apex Court by referring to an earlier decision in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 302 , which was a case of overstay by persons belonging to disciplined force. In the said case it was held that an act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly and it is for the employee concerned to place mitigating circumstances to show how that penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. For the fact that Ghulam Mohd. Bhat had overstayed for a period more than 300 days and that too without any justifiable reason, the Apex Court while setting aside the order of the High Court observed that the order of removal from service did not suffer from any infirmity. 15. In the instant case, the period of absence is 96 days. It is not a case that Late Anil Kalita had abandoned his duty by leaving back any arms and ammunition unguarded and that he was discharging duty in a terrorist-affected area. He was employed as a Driver. In the enquiry proceedings he had at least tendered explanation, which was also recorded, as to the reason of his absence. He had stated that he was suffering from Tuberculosis. It is not a case that no justifiable reason of his absence was placed before the Enquiry Officer. The said reason neither fell for consideration in the Enquiry proceedings or by the disciplinary authority. He eventually suffered demise due to medical problems. Before this Court also, the counsel for the appellant have relied upon the mitigating circumstances to support that the penalty imposed upon Late Anil Kalita was disproportionate and shocking. Over and above, this is a case filed by a widow having two minor children praying for modification of the punishment as a measure for doing complete justice. 16. The case in Mithilesh Singh (supra) and Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra) are different. Over and above, this is a case filed by a widow having two minor children praying for modification of the punishment as a measure for doing complete justice. 16. The case in Mithilesh Singh (supra) and Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra) are different. Each case is an authority for what it actually decides. Although Late Anil Kalita belonged to a disciplined force, the fact that he had tendered reason for his absence cannot altogether stand discarded. The circumstances under which he remained absent finds recorded in the enquiry proceedings. Medical problems eventually led to his demise leaving back the appellant and two minor children. 17. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that penalty imposed upon Late Anil Kalita was shockingly disproportionate and excessive, which goes to the root of the matter. As a necessary corollary, we deem it fit to direct the respondents concerned to reconsider the penalty so imposed in a manner where at least the appellant widow is made entitled to receive the retirement benefits that her husband earned by continuously serving the Police Department for almost 14 years. There are also no records to show of any past misbehaviour or misdemeanour on the part of Late Anil Kalita, for which any proceeding had been initiated. 18. With the above findings, the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the Order dated 23.10.2005 to the extent of removing Late Anil Kalita from service are set aside. The exercise for complying with the direction to reconsider the penalty imposed upon Late Anil Kalita be done as expeditiously as possible, preferably within an outer limit period of 8 (eight) weeks from today. Appellant is permitted to furnish a copy of this order to the respondent concerned for their doing the needful in terms of the above. The present appeal stands allowed. No costs.