ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved of the penalty order date 15.03.2014 by which she has been dismissed from service. 2. Before adverting to the facts of the case in detail, it would be appropriate to record that the original order of dismissal from service dated 31.10.2009 which was affirmed by the appellate authority by an order dated 23.06.2011 both were quashed by the writ Court vide order dated 30.10.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.6737 of 2011, with a direction to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter from the stage of second show-cause containing the reasons for differing with the enquiry report. 3. The petitioner has brought on record a copy of the second show-cause dated 19.02.2014 which admittedly does not disclose “notes on disagreement” of the disciplinary authority. 4. In “Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. B. Karunakar and Others” reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , on supply of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee the Supreme Court has held that it is mandatory for the employer to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent employee. In “Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra” reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , it has been held that even in cases where the enquiry officer has found the charges against the delinquent not proved a copy of the enquiry report must be furnished to the delinquent employee so as to enable him to plead the mitigating circumstances and the facts which would indicate that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are sustainable. In various judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court adopting a similar line, including the one in “Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra” (supra), has held that the disciplinary authority is under a duty to indicate the reasons when he decides to differ with the favourable findings recorded by the enquiry officer and supply the reasons to the delinquent employee so that he meets the grounds of disagreement in order to persuade the disciplinary authority not to take a different view in the matter. The reason is that no adverse order should be passed against the delinquent employee without putting him on notice. The reason is that no adverse order should be passed against the delinquent employee without putting him on notice. Evidently, an order of dismissal passed against the delinquent employee against whom charges were not found proved by the enquiry officer would be unsustainable, if the “notes on disagreement” has not been supplied to the delinquent employee. 5. Mr. Rohit, the learned State counsel has, however, raised a plea on maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that under Rule 851 of Jharkhand Police Manual an appeal shall lie against the order of dismissal dated 15.03.2014. As indicated hereinabove, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed in breach of rules of natural justice and while so, the technical objection on maintainability of the writ petition is rejected. 6. Now coming to the facts of the case. The petitioner joined as 'Lady Constable' on 27.06.2005 and on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty she was placed under suspension on 03.07.2009. It is not in dispute that by an order dated 03.02.2009 the petitioner was granted maternity leave for 135 days. According to the department she was required to tender her joining by 19.06.2009, however, when she did not join the duty by that time she was put under suspension. A charge-memo dated 04.08.2009 was served upon the petitioner on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty; the charge-memo records that vide memo dated 06.06.2009, 25.06.2009 and 07.07.2009 letters at the home address of the petitioner were sent, however, she did not tender her joining. At this stage itself it needs to be recorded that on 03.07.2009 itself the petitioner was put under suspension; the last of the letters is dated 07.07.2009. The petitioner has taken a plea that after she gave birth to a child she and her child both were ill. She has produced the doctor's prescriptions indicating their illness. In the enquiry report dated 11.10.2009, the enquiring officer has exonerated her from the charge framed against her. However, by the penalty order dated 31.10.2009 the disciplinary authority has dismissed her from service and the appeal preferred by her was dismissed on 23.06.2011. The writ Court by an order dated 30.10.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.6737 of 2011 has quashed both the orders and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority. 7. However, by the penalty order dated 31.10.2009 the disciplinary authority has dismissed her from service and the appeal preferred by her was dismissed on 23.06.2011. The writ Court by an order dated 30.10.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.6737 of 2011 has quashed both the orders and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority. 7. Once it is admitted by the department that the petitioner was sanctioned maternity leave, whether her absence from duty after 19.06.2009 is willful and intentional has to be recorded by the departmental authority. There is no such finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in the penalty order dated 15.03.2014; the only reason which is reflected in the penalty order is that in the past she has over-stayed beyond the period of leave. However, it is not the case pleaded by the department that any departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and she has been inflicted penalty on the ground of over-stay. In “Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another” reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a government servant. The question whether “unauthorised absence from duty” amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant. 18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” 8. 18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” 8. Evidently, not only the penalty of dismissal from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty for about 15 days is disproportionate to the charge framed which, of course, was not found proved, the penalty order dated 15.03.2014 has been passed in breach of the rules of natural justice. Normally, when an order suffers infirmity on the ground of breach of the rules of natural justice the matter is remitted back to the authority, however, in view of the facts disclosed in the present proceeding, I am of the opinion that the penalty of dismissal from service is illegal and while so, the matter must be concluded here itself. The maximum penalty, that is, dismissal from service which is akin to death penalty for an employee must not be inflicted so casually as has been done in this case. In the posture of maintaining discipline in the force, one cannot be terminated from service on trivial charges and, that too, when the explanation offered by the delinquent employee is a plausible reason for absence from duty. 9. Accordingly, the penalty order dated 15.03.2014 is quashed. On production of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. 10. The writ petition stands allowed.