ORDER : D.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 1/2020:- 1. Heard. 2. Application has not been opposed and is accordingly allowed. 3. Appeal is taken up for hearing today. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 984/2016:- 4. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the absence of the appellant was on medical grounds. Appellant had submitted a medical certificate issued by the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, wherein it was stated that appellant was suffering from typhoid and required rest from 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995 and he was fit to join his duty on 27.10.1995. Hence, the appellant was liable to be reinstated in service. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 560 , wherein it was held as under:- "12. The disciplinary authority without caring to examine the medical aspect of the absence awarded to him the punishment of removal from service since their earlier order of termination of the appellant's service under the Temporary Service Rules did not materialise. No reasonable disciplinary authority would term absence on medical grounds with proper medical certificates from government doctors as grave misconduct in terms of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. Non-application of mind by quasi-judicial authorities can be seen in this case. The very fact that the respondents have asked the appellant for re-medical clearly establishes that they had received the applicant's application with medical certificate. This can never be termed as willful absence without any information to competent authority and can never be termed as grave misconduct." 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that appellant had been in service for more than 20 years, hence, the punishment awarded to the appellant was disproportionate and was liable to be reduced. 8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2015 (1) WLC (Raj.) 522, wherein it was held as under:- "20. 8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2015 (1) WLC (Raj.) 522, wherein it was held as under:- "20. This court is of the opinion that the extreme penalty of removal, for absence of 179 days looking to the fact that when such penalty was imposed the petitioner had already completed more than 20 years of service with the respondent Department and that the petitioner has now already reached the age of 58 years and is about to attain the age of superannuation, is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. While, therefore, setting aside the aforesaid penalty, the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority for awarding any other penalty except the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. Petitioner shall, however, be deemed to be under suspension from the date of penalty of removal dated 13.01.1999 till reinstatement now pursuant to this order. He shall only be paid 50% subsistence allowance for the intervening period. The disciplinary authority is directed to make compliance of the judgment within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents." 9. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the appellant had remained absent from duty from 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995. Although, appellant had produced the certificate, wherein, it was stated that he was fit to join duty from 27.10.1995 onwards and had been advised rest from 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995 as he was down with typhoid but the appellant had been taking different pleas for his absence period. At one stage, appellant had stated that his wife had fallen sick and he also pleaded that his brother has died. Later, he produced a certificate, wherein, it was stated that he was suffering from typhoid. Learned counsel has further submitted that in a discipline force even one day's absence is a serious matter. 10. Appellant was appointed as a Constable with the Rajasthan Police on 26.09.1975. Appellant absented from duty w.e.f. 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995. Charge-sheet was issued to the appellant for remaining willfully absent from duty without leave on 27.02.1996. Appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. 10. Appellant was appointed as a Constable with the Rajasthan Police on 26.09.1975. Appellant absented from duty w.e.f. 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995. Charge-sheet was issued to the appellant for remaining willfully absent from duty without leave on 27.02.1996. Appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated 19.08.1996 holding that the charge levelled against the appellant was duly proved. During enquiry, appellant had placed reliance on medical certificate dated 27.10.1995. Copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the appellant and show cause notice was issued to him on 25.09.1996 as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Appellant sent his reply to the notice and the Disciplinary Authority ordered dismissal of the appellant from service vide order dated 22.01.1997. Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Competent Authority vide order dated 28.04.1997. 11. It is settled preposition of law that disciplinary authority and on appeal, the appellate authority are the fact finding authorities and have the exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. Courts, while exercising their power of judicial review, do not sit as an appellate authority and cannot reappreciate the evidence. Courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the basis of material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly conducted and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of evidence or reliable nature of the evidence would not be a ground to interfere with the findings in departmental enquiry. Courts will only interfere with the finding of fact recorded in the departmental enquiry only when the said findings are based on no evidence or when they are clearly perverse. The court will interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, mala-fide, capricious or based on extraneous considerations. This Court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion with regard to penalty and impose some other penalty unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. 12. Thus, in the present case, due procedure had been followed before the termination order had been passed against the appellant. This Court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion with regard to penalty and impose some other penalty unless it shocks the conscience of the Court. 12. Thus, in the present case, due procedure had been followed before the termination order had been passed against the appellant. We have also gone through the medical certificate relied upon by the appellant. As per the same, appellant was declared fit to join duty on 27.10.1995 and it was further stated in the certificate that appellant was suffering from typhoid and required rest from 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995. From the said certificate, it cannot be inferred that the appellant had remained admitted in the hospital for the said period. The treatment record of the appellant from 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995 was also not produced on record by the appellant. No medical prescription for the period from 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995 had also been produced on record by the appellant. In case, appellant had suffered typhoid fever, he should have informed the authorities that he was unable to join his duty on account of his illness. 13. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that the Appellate Authority had also written a letter to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur to confirm the genuineness of the medical certificate but no response had been received from the hospital. Appellant had also not examined the doctor who had issued the medical certificate. 14. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 28.04.1997 further reveals that appellant had also taken different pleas. He alleged that he had been possessed by some evil soul. He also stated that his brother had died and his wife was sick and due to this reason he had lost his mental balance. Thus, appellant had been taking different pleas to explain his absence. Learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the present case rightly held that the medical certificate had been correctly not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. 15. We have gone through judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant but the same fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on different facts. 15. We have gone through judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant but the same fail to advance the case of the appellant as they are based on different facts. Appellant was member of Discipline Force and the absence of the appellant from 30.03.1995 to 26.10.1995 has to be viewed with more seriousness as compared to an employee in any other service. 16. No ground for interference is made out. 17. Dismissed.