JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 21.04.2012 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services; and for quashing appellate order dated 09.07.2012 and also for quashing revisional order dated 07.2014 and further for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner while serving on the post of Constable in Koderma District Force, a memo of charge was served upon the petitioner on 28.10.2011 on the allegation that while the petitioner was deputed as Armed Guard in Tiliya Police Station on 08.07.2011 along with other police personnels, all returned at 3.00 O'clock in the morning to their barrack and returned their arms and ammunitions, but, the petitioner was found absent along with his rifle and cartridges. For this charge, he was put under suspension on 09.07.2011. However, later on he deposited his rifle and cartridges and again absconded. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply, to which, the petitioner replied. Being dissatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which led to passing of impugned order of dismissal from services, which has been affirmed in appeal and revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reply submitted by the petitioner was not taken into consideration wherein he has categorically stated that in between 05.06.2011 to 15.06.2011 he was on leave and went to his village where some abnormality in his mental status was found and he was admitted in Patna Medical College and Hospital at Patna and when the petitioner became normal he joined his duty. Furthermore, the prescriptions annexed with the reply has also not been disbelieved by the enquiry officer. It has further been submitted that due to mental illness the petitioner could not deposit six round of cartridges but later on, on being detected, the petitioner deposited the same with permission of the higher authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the witness-Islam Ansari during cross-examination has categorically stated that he found the petitioner to be abnormal during the relevant period. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the witness-Islam Ansari during cross-examination has categorically stated that he found the petitioner to be abnormal during the relevant period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry officer without verifying or disbelieving the stand of the petitioner that he was suffering from mental illness and discarding the evidence on record travelled beyond the charge and found the petitioner guilty. Referring to the decision rendered in the case of M.V. Bijani Vs Union of India & Ors as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 , learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that the enquiry officer cannot go into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the absence was not willful and it was beyond the control of the petitioner to report for or perform duty and it is the disciplinary authority being a quasi-judicial authority, who has to prove that the absence was willful. But, in the instant case, he has failed to do so, hence, the impugned order is vulnerable. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmr Vs. Union of India & Anr. as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the same allegation a criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner being G.R. No. 2166 of 2011, which culminated in clean acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 21.12.2013. It has been submitted that after acquittal, the petitioner preferred memorial before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand annexing the said judgment and making specific averment that he has been acquitted in the criminal case but, without taking into consideration the said judgment of acquittal, the authority rejected the appeal. 5. Assailing the averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that departmental proceeding was initiated against in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunity to examine the witnesses and thereafter, the petitioner, on being found guilty of charges, was imposed the punishment of dismissal from services, which has been affirmed both by appellate as well as by revisional authority. The petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunity to examine the witnesses and thereafter, the petitioner, on being found guilty of charges, was imposed the punishment of dismissal from services, which has been affirmed both by appellate as well as by revisional authority. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that absenteeism has time and again been deprecated by Hon'ble Apex Court and power of judicial review is restricted in such matter. In support of his submission, learned cousnel referred to the decision rendered in the case of Prem Pal Singh Vs. The Union of India & Ors as reported in 2015 (1) JBCJ 466 [HC] [: 2015 (2) JLJR 238 ]. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the criminal case was lodged on different charge. Moreover, in disciplinary proceeding the required standard of proof is different than that of criminal proceeding, which has been reiterated in catena of judgments delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. After bestowing my anxious considerations to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the relevant records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). From bare perusal of memo of charge, it appears that main charge against the petitioner is that he absconded from the barrack with rifle and cartridges, but, later on he deposited the same and again absconded. Basing on these charges, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner-delinquent has come with a specific stand that due to mental illness he could not join his duty on time and later on, on being cured, he joined his services. From perusal of impugned order of punishment passed by disciplinary authority dated 21.04.2012, it further appears that witness-Islam Ansari during cross-examination has specifically stated that in the relevant period they noticed abnormal behavior by the petitioner and witness-Abdul Hakim Ansari also deposed that the delinquent used to take medicine and there was abnormality in his behavior. But, from perusal of the concluding paragraph of impugned order dated 21.04.2012, it appears that without disbelieving the medical prescriptions and discarding the evidence deposed by the witness, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises, found the delinquent guilty of the charges and impugned the punishment of dismissal from services has been passed, travelling beyond the so-called charges. But, from perusal of the concluding paragraph of impugned order dated 21.04.2012, it appears that without disbelieving the medical prescriptions and discarding the evidence deposed by the witness, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises, found the delinquent guilty of the charges and impugned the punishment of dismissal from services has been passed, travelling beyond the so-called charges. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 . (ii). From perusal of departmental proceeding, it further appears that referring to Rule 843 of the Police Manual, allegation of unauthorized absence has also been made against the petitioner. But, the disciplinary authority without disbelieving or discarding the evidence and without coming to the conclusion that absence was willful and not due to compelling circumstances, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises came to erroneous finding that absence was willful, which does not stand to reason in the eye of law. (iii). From perusal of record, it further appears that for the same incidence a criminal case was also lodged against the petitioner, which resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. (iv). Generally, Court refrains from the finding recorded by the enquiry officer basing on which impugned order is based, but, there is no straight jacket formula for such interference. In the circumstances, when the punishment imposed upon the delinquent-employee is found to be totally irrational or outrageous defiance of logic and the punishment awarded appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court can interfere with the impugned order of punishment. Basing on the materials available on record, it is a fit case to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, memo dated 21.04.2012 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services; and appellate order dated 09.07.2012 and also revisional order dated 07.2014 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 8. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, memo dated 21.04.2012 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services; and appellate order dated 09.07.2012 and also revisional order dated 07.2014 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 8. So far as payment of back wages are concerned, applying the principle of 'no work no pay' and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages for the interregnum period i.e. from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to get benefit of continuity in service so far as computation of period of pension and other retiral benefits are concerned. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.