JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This is a matter challenging the order of punishment of reduction in pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay of Head Constable for five years and treating the period from the date of dismissal from service to the date of rejoining on reinstatement decision vide Annexures-1 and 2 and for further direction from this Court in the matter of sanction of usual scale of pay looking to the length of service and further for release of salary from the period from 16.02.2002 to 11.07.2002, as denied vide Annexure-3, by treating the said period as on duty and also for further direction for release of the salary for the E.O.L. period, i.e., 09.07.2002 to 16.09.2002 and also for quashing of order dated 12.12.2002 (Annexure-4). 2. Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner, a duly selected candidate as Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force (for short “CISF”) while continuing as Constable in the CISF Unit at NALCO, faced a Departmental proceeding bearing D.P. No.603 dated 21.09.2001 initiated by opposite party no.1. The charge-sheet involving the petitioner contained allegation that the petitioner after availing medical rest overstayed from 11.07.2001 and also remained under unauthorized absent from quarter on 12.07.2002, again on 16.07.2001, further involved in gross misdemeanor while trying to obtain Video cassette from a shopkeeper and further for gross misconduct and disobedience of lawful order along with unauthorized retention of quarter by not vacating the same even after direction. It further reveals that the petitioner for his sickness was advised by the doctor of the NALCO hospital to take rest from 10.07.2001 to 09.07.2002. Petitioner was allowed two days medical rest by the Authority. As the petitioner did not recover from his illness, he went to the doctor of NALCO hospital again on 10.07.2001 and being diagnosed to be suffering with typhoid he was advised rest from 11.07.2001 to 16.07.2001. It is submitted by the petitioner that on 11.07.2001 the petitioner by a telephonic message intimated the Control Room about his illness as he was not in a position to submit any written message to the Office. It further reveals that while the position stood thus, the petitioner met with an accident and got seriously injured on 17.07.2001 and as he remained as an Indoor patient in the NALCO hospital, he could not be able to join duty. It further reveals that while the position stood thus, the petitioner met with an accident and got seriously injured on 17.07.2001 and as he remained as an Indoor patient in the NALCO hospital, he could not be able to join duty. The petitioner claimed that he has intimated this aspect to the authority. While the position stood thus, and when the petitioner along with his family was occupying the quarter, on 15.09.2001 the Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit, NALCO directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter within 24 hours. Since “16.09.2001” was a ‘Sunday’, the petitioner on 17.09.2001 requested the Commandant to allow him to continue in the said quarter until an alternative arrangement is made on the premises that his son is a School going children and his wife was also serving at a distance place creating hardship in the vacation of the quarter. It is alleged that the Establishment without considering the difficulties of the petitioner, initiated the Departmental proceeding on 21.09.2001 on submission of charge-sheet on the allegations indicated hereinabove. The petitioner after receipt of the charge-sheet submitted his response, but the Authority being dissatisfied with the response of the petitioner directed for enquiry into the charges involving the petitioner. It is alleged that in spite of the petitioner’s request for adjournment of the enquiry on account of his bad health, the enquiry was concluded ex-parte. Subsequently, the petitioner was communicated with a copy of the enquiry report asking him to submit his response to the enquiry report. Petitioner asked for some time to submit his response. It is alleged, this time also declining the request of the petitioner to accommodate him some more time for submitting his response, the Commandant passed the final order on 16.02.2002 dismissing the petitioner from service. Upon receipt of the dismissal order, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the D.I.G., C.I.S.F., Eastern Zone, Patna on 05.03.2001. The appellate authority reduced the punishment of dismissal to reduction of pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay of Constable for five years. The appellate authority also simultaneously directed that the petitioner will earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The appellate authority also simultaneously directed that the petitioner will earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of this period the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. While passing the modified punishment order, the petitioner was directed to report for service to the CISF Unit, RHPP, Pipri within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order. The appellate authority also issued a direction to the effect that the intervening period from dismissal from service of the petitioner to the date of joining on reinstatement will be treated/regularized as ‘Diesnon’ with opportunity to the petitioner to further appeal against the aforesaid punishment. The petitioner upon receipt of the order reducing the order of punishment of dismissal to an order of reinstatement with certain conditions in the matter of payment, after submitting his joining report, made a representation to the D.I.G., CISF, Eastern Zone for interference with the order of punishment passed by the appellate authority. In consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the D.I.G., CISF, Eastern Zone interfering with the order of punishment further amended the punishment order of the appellate authority modifying the order of the punishment and substituting the same with the order of reduction of pay to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay of Head constable for five years as appearing at Annexure-2. In the meantime, in a further development involving the petitioner in another incident petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why the action of the petitioner will not be treated as gross indiscipline and on consideration of the submission of the petitioner, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was imposed with an order of punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year vide Annexure-4. Further, perusal of the writ petition, it appears, even though the petitioner brought the entire history relating to his dismissal and the modification as well as subsequent modification of the order of dismissal by the higher Forums, but the averments onwards paragraph-6, it appears, the petitioner again brought a dispute with regard to punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year without giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing. On this aspect, this Court observes that stoppage of one increment involving the petitioner in an independent incident other than the incident involving the charges involved herein, cannot form part of this writ petition. Further, since the petitioner had got the scope of appeal for petitioner’s not filing any appeal involving the subsequent order of punishment, this Court has no scope to entertain such issue in the present writ petition. Therefore, the present writ petition only confines to the order of dismissal, the modification thereof and the further modification alone. 3. Assailing the impugned order, Shri Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Authorities have not given a fair consideration to the case of the petitioner, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was initially ill and was under the treatment of the doctor in the Company’s hospital itself. Further, subsequently his meeting with an accident and compelling him not to attend the official duties. Shri Mohanty, learned counsel also contended that even assuming that there has been deliberate absence from duty, but looking to the nature of offence, the punishment appears to be disproportionate to the alleged offence. Shri Mohanty, learned counsel thus requested this Court for interfering with the impugned order and reinstated the petitioner with full back wages in interfering with the impugned orders. 4. The contesting opposite parties on their appearance referring to the counter affidavit on their behalf through counsel, Shri R.C. Swain and Shri Dayanidhi Lenka contested the allegation of the petitioner on the premises that looking to the charges framed against the petitioner, further for the conduct of the petitioner involved therein and further taking into consideration the discipline service held by the petitioner and his absence creating a serious impact in the security system involved herein, further his involvement in nepharious and clandestine activities in extracting materials in the name of higher officers and on false impersonation, further for the petitioner failing in disproving the charges made against him, there has been appropriate consideration of the issue involved herein by the D.I.G., CISF ultimately and looking to the reduction in the punishment at the higher level, there has been imposition of minimum punishment on the petitioner requiring no interference in the impugned orders. 5. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the charge-sheet involving the petitioner who was working as a constable and involved in a discipline service, the petitioner was charged for gross misconduct and carelessness by overstaying beyond the period of medical rest without permission of the competent authority, further for being found unauthorizedly absent from the quarter itself, even when necessary checking were made by the personnel of the establishment under direction of the competent authority. There is also an allegation of gross misdemeanor and deception attributed to the petitioner for his trying to obtain a Video cassette in the name of higher official posing himself to be an Inspector/Vigilance of Angul Police and involving the said incident he was also apprehended by the local police and detained in the Police Station for some time. Further, the petitioner is also charged with gross misconduct, disobedience of lawful order and unauthorized retention of accommodation in spite of clear direction for vacating the same. Even though the petitioner submitted that he was not given a fair opportunity in the enquiry proceeding neither the petitioner appended the order-sheet involving the enquiry proceeding nor the petitioner even appended the copy of enquiry report at least to establish non-consideration of his case properly. Be that as it may, this Court finds, in the submission of the appeal, it appears, taking into consideration the case of the petitioner in detail, the appellate authority after realizing that though the petitioner did not avail leave from the competent authority but for the medical documents available therein he had a ground for remaining absent, this Court here observes, even though the petitioner had compelling reasons, but being an employee, particularly in discipline service like CISF, it was incumbent upon the petitioner should not have remained in unauthorized leave even assuming that the petitioner was suffering and remained unmoved, nothing prevented the petitioner to approach for leave applying for other modes. It is for this reason, the appellate authority for this negligence of the petitioner and with the fact finding that the petitioner admittedly remained unauthorizedly absent, the appellate authority taking a lenient view interfered in the punishment of dismissal and reduce the same by awarding punishment indicated in Annexure-2. On further appeal to the D.I.G., CISF, this Court again finds, the order of punishment has been further reduced and modified as appearing at Annexure-2. On further appeal to the D.I.G., CISF, this Court again finds, the order of punishment has been further reduced and modified as appearing at Annexure-2. Looking to the charges, particularly in respect of a person in a discipline service and taking into account the modified order of punishment, this Court finds no scope for interfering in the impugned order. Now, coming to consider the allegation of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the offence involved, this Court observes that from the detail discussion hereinabove this Court does not find the modified punishment imposed on the petitioner can be termed as disproportionate to the gravity of offence and thus finds no scope for interfering in the impugned modified punishment order and, as such, dismiss the writ petition for having no merit. There will be no order as to costs.