JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the applicant-petitioner herein. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner entered service as Postal Assistant on 16.5.83 under Ajmer City Division and sought transfer under para 38 of P & T Manual Vol.IV (request transfer) to Jaipur on 2.2.85. She again sought request transfer under the same rule to RLO office Jaipur as Postal Assistant (PA). Under the P&T Manual, RLO office is a different cadre and working of PA at RLO requires specific Training, therefore, while transferring the applicant to this Branch, the Post Master General (CMPG) made it clear that the applicant will have to undergo the prescribed training at per own expense by taking leave as due and on successful completion of the same only, she will be entitled to join. Accordingly, she joined RLO office on 10.4.1992. At that time, RLO Jaipur was situated in C-Scheme, Jaipur. However, in January, 1996 this office was shifted to Jawahar Nagar. After shifting, the applicant complained that two employees of RLO office i.e. S/Shri Hanif Khan and Suraj working on the post of PA and Group 'D' respectively were using abusing language and making filthy remarks at her in the face of which, she was finding difficulty in working in that office. To this effect, she made complaints on 7.4.1997 and 29.7.1997. It is stated that she also made various representations to different authorities, the last representation being dated 7.4.1998. The dispute which is subject-matter of appeal is that she was dismissed from service after holding an enquiry on the ground of long willful absence and dismissal order was confirmed by the appellate authority with modification of penalty by voluntary retirement which was subject-matter of application before CAT and this petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka and Others. v. State of Raj. and Others. 3. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka and Others. v. State of Raj. and Others. , (1997) AIR SC 3011, the guidelines have not be followed and petitioner has been victimised and though she was willing to work but the circumstances are created beyond her control and she could not work at the working place, therefore, she complained to the competent authority and she has also approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2934/98 wherein on 16.4.2001 this Court passed the following order: "On 24.3.1999 it was submitted by the petitioner that she can be posted in the office of PMG in administrative office of Senior Supdt., Post office, Jaipur City Division or Postal Store Depot, Administrative Office if some other ladies are working in the office. The department sought time to seek instruction in this regard whether she can be accommodated in any office or not? Today the letter 12.4.2001 has been placed on record, whereby the petitioner has been transferred and posted as Postal Asstt. GPO, Jaipur and therefore, so far the grievance of petitioner is concerned to transfer her that has been met and no other action is required in this respect. In the written statement submitted on behalf of respondent it is stated that one another lady was also posted in RLP namely Smt. Shanti Sharma, Postal Asstt. since 1979. Though she was on leave frequently since 5.5.96 due to her domestic circumstances but she was on duty for the period as detailed in para No. 4. It is further submitted that the matter was got enquired by the Circle Complaints Committee chaired by Smt. Meera Handa, Director, Postal Services, Ajmer Region with Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Jain, Chief Medical Officer In-charge, P&T Dispensary No. 2 and Shri Anurag Priyadarshee. APMG (Sragg & Vigl.) as members constituted as per guidelines set by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even though the report dated 5.6.98 (Ann.R-2) is not in favour of the petitioner, but still in para No. 14 of the report the committee has stated that petitioner was asked to join her duty in RL especially after the staff of RLO having been severely warned for extreme consequence in the matter on 27.2.98 or to apply for transfer. Even though the report dated 5.6.98 (Ann.R-2) is not in favour of the petitioner, but still in para No. 14 of the report the committee has stated that petitioner was asked to join her duty in RL especially after the staff of RLO having been severely warned for extreme consequence in the matter on 27.2.98 or to apply for transfer. Without going into the matter any further, in my opinion, it cannot be imagined that the petitioner would unnecessary make complaints about the harassing attitude of other officials. Initially her complaints were not looked into, even though she had been asking for transfer, but she was asked to apply under Rule 38. Even if some other lady had been working in the same office, but it all depends on the circumstances when the staff may not keep reservation for certain employee. It was a fit case where the authorities, as soon as on receipt of representation of petitioner, should have transferred the petitioner to some other place form RLO. The petitioner had been repeatedly asking for her transfer from RLO and when she was not transferred she had no alternate but to proceed on leave until and unless she was adjusted in a respectable place. But it is not imaginable as to why the department had not applied its mind to such grievance of the petitioner. Even though according to department it may be only imagination. In my opinion, it was a fit case where the petitioner should have been shifted immediately and should have held the enquiry against the persons, named by the petitioner, whether they had actually indulged in such activities or not? By acting in such manner the department could have helped the petitioner while keeping the petitioner in the same office. The petitioner has been charge sheeted for remaining absent, which she admits that she had to remain absent, but she had to apply for leave because of the reason that she was unable to work in the office in such atmosphere. The enquiry has not been completed as yet. If the authorities in view of the circumstances are still inclined to continue with the charge sheet, it is expected that the authorities shall take into consideration all these circumstances. If, ultimately any adverse order is passed against the petitioner she is at liberty to challenge the same. The enquiry has not been completed as yet. If the authorities in view of the circumstances are still inclined to continue with the charge sheet, it is expected that the authorities shall take into consideration all these circumstances. If, ultimately any adverse order is passed against the petitioner she is at liberty to challenge the same. In the present writ petition no other relief can be granted to petitioner as the relief sought has already been granted by transferring the petitioner vide order dated 12.4.2001. Before parting with the judgment a word of caution is administered to the Chief Post Master General, CPMG office, Postal Department C-Scheme, Jaipur to see that on the report of lady employee of such type of harassment he would keep strict watch and if any such activities are noticed a prompt action can always be taken to save the situation from worsening any further." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in spite of directions of this Court, the petitioner has been still victimised and enquiry was not conducted properly and she was not allowed to engage a defence counsel and she has been deprived of documents which were relied upon. She has also taken us to representation dated 10.4.2001 which reads as under: 1. That the undersigned joined the Department in the year 1983 on the Post of Postal Assistant, In the year 1992 she was transferred to Return Letter office (in short R.L.O.) on cost. The petitioner served the Department to the utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities concerned and has not received any letter which may, even remotely depose her inefficiency, disobedience or for any lawful absent. 2. That since 1996 the undersigned was left as only lady employee in RLO office. In these circumstances certain co-employees of Postal Department started placing derogatory remarks and abuses which fails in the parameters of obscenity which made the working conditions intolerable and pathetic. Undersigned reported the matter to the Director, Postal Department on 7.4.97 wherein she also named the culprits, no action was initiated by the Department against those persons, moreover they were not even condemned for their attitude. The representation against the conditions were given repeatedly vide dated 29.7.97, 7.11.97, 28.11.97, 12.12.97, 2.1.98, 8.1.98, 3.2.98 9.2.98, 18.2.98, 3.3.98 etc., but no heed was paid. The representation against the conditions were given repeatedly vide dated 29.7.97, 7.11.97, 28.11.97, 12.12.97, 2.1.98, 8.1.98, 3.2.98 9.2.98, 18.2.98, 3.3.98 etc., but no heed was paid. In these circumstances there is no remedy available to her except to her go on leave i.e. on forced leave, for which she gave the telegram on 17.11.97 itself the manager, RLO. 3. That the undersigned filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2934/98 wherein the reply was filed by the Department on 20.7.98 meaning thereby the department was well aware that the undersigned is on leave due to the unworkable atmosphere of R.L.O. she also received a letter dated 2.9.97 by the Manager R.L.O. wherein it was advised to the undersigned to file amended leave application. In the above circumstances it is evident that the Department was knowing fully well about the movements of the undersigned and hence cannot be treated as the offender under Rules 62 and 63 of P&T Manuals Vol.III. It is also mentionable at this juncture that the case of undersigned is not simplicitor case of absent but a case wherein serious objections pertaining to the atmosphere of the R.L.O. is under question. It is sorry to state herein that the allegations levelled by the undersigned were not taken seriously, the alleged employees are still working in R.L.O., whereas without any option given to undersigned, she has been transferred to Malviya Nagar Post Office against the Leave Reserve Post that too during the pendency of the writ petition. The enquiry which is initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965 is per-se illegal uncalled for and wholly misconceived in the present scenario of the case. Rather it can also be treated as disregard towards the highest authority of law in the State of Rajasthan since the matter is still sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court and wherein the Department is contesting and has not only filed the reply but rejoinder to the rejoinder of undersigned has also been filed and one Additional Affidavit has also been filed by the Department. Hence, it could no be said that the movements of the undersigned were not known to the Department, moreover, in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is not envisaged by the undersigned to get leave sanctioned to be more precise, the undersigned had all the reasons available, lo to the conduct of the Department, that no leave could have been sanctioned, therefore, mere formality of requesting the sanction of leave does not bring the case within the parameters of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965 or within the ambit of Rules 62 and 63 of the P&T Manual Vol.III or could bring the case under Rule 20 of CCS (conduct) Rules, 1964. 4.1 She has also taken us through the specific averments made in the representation which reads as under:- 8. That the undersigned also request to plead her case under sub-rule request to plead her case under sub-rule 8-A of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the Legal Practitioner since it appears peculiar circumstances, hence, undersigned requests to allow her, to get pleaded, her case through a legal practitioner taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. It is, Therefore, requested that the reply may be taken on record and the proceedings may kindly be dropped in view of the pendency of the writ petition and also giving regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case. The undersigned be permitted to plead her case through a legal practioner, the copies of the documents be made available to the undersigned. 4.2 Counsel for the petitioner also contended that petitioner has been deprived of her legitimate right due to summary enquiry. In this regard, she has also taken us to inquiry report and then her defence to enquiry report which was presented which according to her was not considered and disciplinary authority has disproportionately imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which is very harsh and it appropriate punishment according to her was stoppage of 5 grade increment or any other major punishment of order of reversion etc. But dismissal order is very harsh. 4.3 She has relied on decision of Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineering College and Others. But dismissal order is very harsh. 4.3 She has relied on decision of Supreme Court in Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineering College and Others. , (2009) AIR SC 2458 Civil Appeal No. 3565/2009 decided on 14.5.2009 wherein it has been observed as under: (I) Jagdish Singh v. Punjab Engineering College and Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 3565/2009 decided on 14.5.2009: 3. The facts in brief are as under: The appellant was working as a Sweeper in the Respondent-Punjab Engineering College. He remained absent unauthorizedly for the period from 11.02.2004 to 13.02.2004, 17.02.2004 to 20.02.2004, 05.03.2004 to 09.03.2004 and 23.03.2004 to 26.03.2004. The departmental enquiry was initiated by the disciplinary authority of the college by issuing a charge memo containing the allegation of unauthorized absence and an inquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges alleged. In reply to the charge memo and also before the inquiry officer, the plea of the workman was that in order to save matrimonial life of his daughter due to indifferent attitude of her in-laws, he had no other go but to absent himself on different dates during the month of February and March, 2004 and further he could not take prior permission from the employer due to mental agony, anguish, and the anxiety that he was undergoing during the relevant time. 6. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the only contention canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges alleged against the appellant, especially, in view of the explanation offered by the appellant for his unauthorized absence for a few days in the month of February and March, 2004 and lesser punishment would meet the ends of justice. 10. The instant case is not a case of habitual absenteeism. The appellant seems to have a good track record from the date he joined service as a sweeper. In his long career of service, he remained absent for 15 days on four occasions in the month of February and March, 2004. This was primarily due to sort out the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to apply and obtain leave from the employer. In his long career of service, he remained absent for 15 days on four occasions in the month of February and March, 2004. This was primarily due to sort out the problem of his daughter with her in-laws. The filial bondage and the emotional attachment might have come in his way to apply and obtain leave from the employer. The misconduct that is alleged, in our view, would definitely amounts to violation of discipline that is expected of an employee to maintain in the establishment, but may not fit into the category of gross violation of discipline. We hasten to add if it were to be habitual absenteeism, we would not have ventured to entertain this appeal. 11. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 30.09.2004 and affirmed by the High Court vide its order dated 28.08.2007. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having due regard to unblemished record of the appellant, and the reasons for which he remained absent without obtaining permission, the ends of justice would be met, if punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and further declare that he would not entitled for any monetary benefits during the period he was out of service and that period would be counted only for the purpose of his service benefits. We direct the disciplinary authority to issue appropriate orders in this regard within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this Court's order by either of the parties. 4.4 Another decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5762-5763/2009 ( Coal India Ltd. & Another. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhary & Ors , (2010) AIR SC 75) decided on 24.8.2009 wherein it has been held as under: 26. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well recognized concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. Award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. 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 exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. 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. Ordinarily, we would have sent the matter back to the appropriate authority for reconsideration on the question of punishment but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this exercise may not be proper. In our view, the demand of justice would be met if the Respondent No. 1 is denied back wages for the entire period by way of punishment for the proved misconduct of unauthorized absence for six months. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order of appellate authority wherein it has been observed as under: (x) The appellant also alleges delay in conduct of inquiries on her complaints. As has been motioned above, the inquiries had been got conducted from time-to-time and the allegations were not found proved. 4. In view of the above factual position, I find the appellant had actually wanted to be transferred to a more convenient office with permanency of tenure and on learning that it was not permissible under the rules, she absented herself from duty unauthorized and exhibited gross indiscipline. 4. In view of the above factual position, I find the appellant had actually wanted to be transferred to a more convenient office with permanency of tenure and on learning that it was not permissible under the rules, she absented herself from duty unauthorized and exhibited gross indiscipline. Repeated inquiries to explore correctness of her allegation of sexual harassment concluded without finding any truth in them. The clear fluting of the orders of the employer and remaining absent from duty for such a long period willfully, on the basis of unsubstantiated allegation on fellow workers in an attempt to get a posting of her choice, stand proved. However, looking to the entire episode in totality, her service in the department as also in view of the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Jaipur in her case. I am inclined to take a compassionate view and provide some relief to the appellant. Accordingly. I, (Smt.) Sarita Singh, Director Postal Services, Jaipur Region Jaipur, exercising the powers of appellate authority vested in me under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, hereby modify the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the said Smt. Manju Lata Gupta Vide memo. No.B-751 dated 7.1.2002 of the sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Jaipur City Dn. Jaipur to that of compulsory retirement. 5.1 He has taken us to the order of Tribunal wherein while considering the matter on merits, the Tribunal observed as under: 11. We have given very careful consideration to the facts and pleadings of this case. Respondents action in this case has been questioned on four important matters of administrative jurisprudence namely absence, transfer, punishment and sensitivity towards problems of women employees in the department. Matter has become more important also because of High Court's intervention exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, while dealing with the case we are conscious that unlike the High Court we have limited powers confined to interpretation of rules and ensure that principles of natural justice and fair play are not violated, and respondents action is not driven by mala fide. 12. However, while dealing with the case we are conscious that unlike the High Court we have limited powers confined to interpretation of rules and ensure that principles of natural justice and fair play are not violated, and respondents action is not driven by mala fide. 12. In the matter of absence applicant feels that although she did not attend office but this act was not wilful because from the very beginning she has implored the respondents to act expeditiously in the matter of sexual harassment she was facing at the hands of some employees of the RLO office. The respondents, on the other hand, having more than once inquired into the complaints have come to the conclusion that her allegation against the some male employees are baseless and that these complaints were more with the view to seek transfer to the office of CPMG or other administrative offices near it in Jaipur because location of that office was more convenient to her in view of its proximity with her husband's work place. They have vehemently denied their lack of sensitivity towards problems of women employees both to this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High Court. They have explained that even though she was posted in RLO in 1992 and continued to work there with the same staff till 1996 without complaint, when RLO office was situated in C-Scheme, Jaipur, she started complaining against S/Shri Mohd. Hanif Khan and Suraj Mal after RLO was shifted to Jawahar Nagar premises. It is noted by us that shifting of RLO office was with equipment, files and staff and it is not understood how the same staff suddenly turned hostile towards her in the new premises. We have also noted that she was not the only woman employee in RLO as Smt. Sharma though irregular in attendance due to her domestic problems was the other woman employee and Mr.s Meera Handa's committee (Circle Complaints Committee) had examined her also in detail to ascertain whether the above staff members had the bad habit of teasing and hurting the dignity of women employees and her reply was to the negative. In view of these facts we have no reason to disbelieve that her complaint was crouched in request for transfer to an office located near her husband's work place and the same was really to seek transfer. In view of these facts we have no reason to disbelieve that her complaint was crouched in request for transfer to an office located near her husband's work place and the same was really to seek transfer. She remained absent from duty from 17.11.97 to 12.4.2001 after submitting conditional leave application that unless the above male staff were punished, she would be unable to attend office. But in Leave Rules there is no scope for conditional leave applications and respondents asked her to join duty after informing her ad Hon'ble High Court that her complaint was found ill founded but even then she did not resume duty. They have taken a more serious view of her continued absence after her posting to Malviya Nagar because at that place of posting there was no reason for any complaint. The facts reveal that the respondents gave her show-cause notice before initiating departmental action for absence but that too did not have the desired effect. 13. The respondents have dealt with the above absence invoking Rules 62 and 63 of the P&T Manual Vol.III. The applicant has challenged this action alleging non-applicability of these rules to her case. But close examination of arguments leave us in no doubt that these rules have been correctly invoked to take action against above absent. In fact respondents action was correct and in abidance with rules right from the beginning i.e. from the stage of examination of reply after receipt of charge-sheet upto decision in appeal. The evaluation of evidence done by the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in this regard are flawless and we fell that Rules 62 and 63 of P&T Manual Vol.III have been correctly applied and that indeed applicant's absence was wilful and irregular because competent authority had not sanctioned it because they realised after the inquiry conducted by the Circle Complaints Committee that her complaints against male employees are false and that these complaints are only a cover to seek transfer from RLO, which under normal rules could not be ordered. We are conscious of the fact that P&T Department is service department in which employees are forbidden from absenting or proceeding on leave without adequate reason and sanction of competent authority because such action may adversely affect the service the department intends to impart to the society. We are conscious of the fact that P&T Department is service department in which employees are forbidden from absenting or proceeding on leave without adequate reason and sanction of competent authority because such action may adversely affect the service the department intends to impart to the society. This absence is also for a long period i.e. 17.11.97 to 12.04.2001, that is nearly 40 months, which could not be taken lightly by the respondents. Employees have to bear in mind that occasional short or long leave due to sickness or other pressing circumstances can always be taken but leave cannot be demanded as a right by employees if the rules do not permit and administrative reasons demand otherwise. 14. Regarding transfer also the position of law is very clear and well established in a catena of judgments by the highest Court of law that transfer is an inseperable part of service and even though employers are required to take note of genuine difficulties of the employees and follow the guidelines laid down in this behalf but they have been empowered with discretion to deviate from these because of official exigencies. Even the Courts and Tribunals are forbidden from interfering in transfer matters unless mala fide and gross violative of rules is alleged. In the instant case, we find that the circumstances in which applicant was transferred from RLO to Malviya Nagar Post office are genuine. In ordering this, they had taken into consideration that Malviya Nagar Post Office has posts of Postal Assistants, to which cadre she belonged, here she would be away from the male employees with whom she had developed unpleasant relationship due to her complaints, and that this location is marginally nearer her husband's work place. Since, in the High Court also, applicant was pressing for a transfer from RLO and Hon'ble High Court was also keen to find a via-media, respondents ordered this posting as a special case. But applicant insisted on posting to a place convenient to her and continue to remain absent without applying for leave, and respondents thereafter posted to her to GPO, Jaipur as a special case, and Hon'ble High Court also decided to not interfere with this order, although this place is not one of the four places suggested by her, nor permanently of the type demanded by her was granted in the order. Thus we see no illegality in the matter of above transfer by the respondents. 15. The third issue regarding disciplinary inquiry has to be examined as mentioned above by us for the limited questions weather it was born of any mala fide or there had been violation of rules in matter of application of principles of natural justice. On this count we find that the respondent's action is fully justified because Disciplinary Inquiry has been conducted as per rules, the charge of absence is certainly made out because of the facts stated above, and it is wrong to state that due to a complaint against some male staff members she was justified in not attending office. Rules 62 and 63 have been correctly invoked. The competence of SSPOs, City Circle, Jaipur, in issuing the charge sheet and awarding punishment can also not be questioned because although she did not join duty on that day, due to wilful absence, but as per extant rules, she was under his administrative and discipline control. Applicant's allegation against the presenting officer is found ill founded because we found nothing in his behalf to suspect that he was not acting neutrally. The Inquiry report is well reasoned and to the point and it clearly shows how the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge is proved. The order of the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authority are well reasoned and they cover all points raised by the applicant after issuance of charge sheet and upto the filing of appeal. The Appellate Authority has taken into account the pleadings in Hon'ble High Court also, and after consideration of all facts and taking a lenient view reduced the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement. We find no illegality in issuance of charge sheet even when writ petition filed by the applicant was sub-judice because on the basis of replies submitted by the respondents, Hon'ble High Court has preserved the right of the respondents to pursue the disciplinary inquiry, and give liberty applicant to challenge adverse order passed against her as per law. The alleged mala fide is also not proved because though raised by applicant in the grounds has neither been elaborated with reasons nor pursued in the pleadings or arguments. 16. The alleged mala fide is also not proved because though raised by applicant in the grounds has neither been elaborated with reasons nor pursued in the pleadings or arguments. 16. Lastly, regarding action of respondents in dealing with problems of female staff in work place, we find that they have worked extra ordinarily in trying to ascertain the truth of allegations and had ordered applicant's posting to Malviya Nagar Post Office as a special case while exercising discretionary although the same was not strictly as per rules. Once she was posted to RLO, normally she could not be transferred to a City Circle as per rules but the same was done to accommodate her at a place where there were more female employees. They could have refused this because her complaint was found not proved, and because one Smt. Shanti Sharma, a female, was posted in this office. All these facts and other administrative action to ensure that women staff are able to work with dignity including issuance of strict warning to male staff and supervisory officers to ensure fair and expeditious action in such matters go to prove this. 17. Before parting with the judgment we are inclined to take serious view of the fact that applicant is pursuing the matter in the Tribunal through this OA and Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan through her second writ petition No.5529/93, for which she is barred as per rules. In para 4.21 of the reply respondents have mentioned that this SB Civil Writ Petition was last listed on 6.1.2004 and they have also appended a copy of the reply submitted by the respondents as Ann.R/9 but the case could not reach for hearing and further date is yet to be fixed by the High Court in this case. We feel that it was incumbent on the applicant to withdraw the petition or this OA or at least inform the Hon'ble High Court that the present OA filed by her in this Tribunal was also at hearing stage so that Hon'ble High Court could have taken a view over the matter. We feel that respondents should now inform the High Court accordingly. 18. We feel that respondents should now inform the High Court accordingly. 18. We are convinced that the respondents action in this case is fully justified and in doing so we gather more strength by observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal & Ors , (2001) AIR SC 1748, which covers two aspects of this case namely transfer and punishment." 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.1 Before proceeding with the matter, it may not be out of place to mention here that the limited scope of this Court is to see whether the procedure is followed or not and if there is any lacunae in following the procedure. The enquiry regarding judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka judgment is not subject-matter of writ petition and was never subject-matter of writ petition before this Court. In our considered opinion, the absent period in question is a very long period of wilful leave and disciplinary authority has held an enquiry where charges were found proved against her and thereafter she has been dismissed. However, the appellate authority taking a considerate view substituted the penalty by compulsory retirement by virtue of which the petit- ioner is getting minimum pension from 8-1-2002. 6.2 In our considered opinion, looking to the long period of absent in Government service especially in postal Department such a long absent is detrimental to the public at large for which the disciplinary authority has opined for dismissal. It will not be appropriate for this Court to substitute the penalty when after the appellate authority has appropriately modified the punishment. The appellate authority has also observed that allegations which are made are not proved by the petitioner. In our considered opinion, such a punishment cannot be substituted in the facts of the case and we held that no less punishment could have been imposed, hence we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. No case is made out for interference. The writ petition stands dismissed.