JUDGMENT : Per Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.: 1. Heard Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, learned C.G.C. on behalf of the Union of India. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 20.11.2010 and the appellate order dated 19.10.2012. The petitioner was a constable in C.I.S.F. while the petitioner was posted as Security Guard in Central Industrial Security Force, Unit Panki, Power House, Kanpur, U.P., the petitioner went on leave for 15 days w.e.f. 07.01.2010 to 21.01.2010, there the petitioner was fell ill and therefore, he could not join the duty after completion of leave. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner by way of FAX informed the authority concerned that he is ill and requested for extension of leave. When the petitioner was recovered from the ailments he reported his duty on 05.04.2010 where he was informed that he has already been removed from the service. He further submits that by way of R.T.I. he obtained a copy of the order dated 20.11.2010 which is contained in Annexure-5 which is the punishment order passed against the petitioner. Thereafter he filed the appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed and the order of the disciplinary authority has been affirmed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not provided full opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. He submits that the charge sheet has also not been served upon the petitioner, only after reporting on 05.04.2010 he was informed about his removal from the authority concerned. The inquiry proceeding was conducted ex-parte and there was no notice of inquiry was served upon the petitioner. He submits that there is complete violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that punishment order is not proportionate to the charge. He submits that the petitioner has already informed the authority by way of FAX about his ailments and the authorities concerned were required to consider the prayer of the petitioner in the right prospective but a harsh punishment of removal from the service has been passed against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has already informed the authority by way of FAX about his ailments and the authorities concerned were required to consider the prayer of the petitioner in the right prospective but a harsh punishment of removal from the service has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Malkiat Singh versus State of Punjab and Others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 634 and submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by this judgment. He referred para 3 of that judgment which is extracted herein below:- “3. The appellant was appointed on 20-04-1990 and was discharged from service on 22-7-1992 on the ground that he remained absent from duty for more than 1 month 9 days. Another ground was that he was irregular in attending to the duty. So he could not prove himself to be an efficient constable. We had sent for the records which disclose that he was absent on three occasions. On the first occasion, when he was called upon to report for duty at 12 noon, he reported on 10-9-1990 and was late by six hours. On the second occasion, he was absent, on 30-6-1991, from night duty. The third occasion as on 24-4-1995. The explanation offered for the absence on the third occasion was that since in his wife’s delivery certain complication had arisen, he had to attend to his wife and so he could not be present. The medical certificate in that behalf was produced. In view of the medical certificate, it cannot be said that he had deliberately absented himself from duty. On the previous two occasions, the absence for one day and in another year for one night cannot be considered to be regular absence so as to reach the conclusion that he had not proved his efficiency. It is true that discipline is required to be maintained. However, absence may sometime be inevitable. In the facts and circumstances of this case, an opportunity maybe given to the appellant to work efficiently to prove his excellence. The order of discharge is set aside. The respondents are directed to take the appellant into service forthwith. If the appellant absents himself again for two consecutive days within one year without prior permission, appropriate action may be taken by dismissing him from service. The order of discharge is set aside. The respondents are directed to take the appellant into service forthwith. If the appellant absents himself again for two consecutive days within one year without prior permission, appropriate action may be taken by dismissing him from service. The appellant, however, is not entitled to back wages.” 4. Per contra, learned counsel for Union of India submits that there is no procedural lacuna in the departmental proceeding. Drawing the attention of the Court on certain paragraphs of the counter-affidavit, he submits that two notices have been sent to the petitioner by inquiry officer and in spite of that the petitioner failed to appear. He further submits that the medical certificate faxed with the application is also not speaks about the latitude of his ailments and it also not shows that the petitioner was bed ridden and not able to join the service. He submits that there is latches on the part of the petitioner and there is no illegality in the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as in the order passed by the appellate authority. He submits that charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has informed about his ailments to the authorities which is acknowledged in letter dated 02.02.2010 contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition. There is also certificates of ailments with the application of the petitioner, but, the authorities concerned have not taken into consideration the same in right perspective. The inquiry proceeding was also ex-parte. Further punishment order also shocks the conscience of this Court and in view of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Malkiat Singh (Supra) the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed, the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority who will pass order afresh taking into account the observations made herein above. 7. In view of the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.