JUDGMENT : P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. These appeals arise from the very same judgment, whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination passed by the 'employer' and ordered reinstatement; however denying back-wages. 2. Writ Appeal No.368 of 2019 has been filed by the 'employee' being aggrieved by the denial of the back-wages and granting a further opportunity to the employer to conduct domestic enquiry, if they so desired, in respect of the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence; despite the fact that the employee was granted leave without wages for the period in question. 3. Writ Appeal No.112 of 2020 has been filed by the 'employer' challenging the reinstatement order passed by the learned Single Judge and in directing to conduct an enquiry; whereas, the misconduct was admitted by the employee and that the proceedings were completed in accordance with the relevant rules of Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee, Adarsh Seva Sharte Niyam, 1975 (for short, 'the Rule, 1975') where no separate enquiry is envisaged. 4. We heard Shri S.P. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the employee and Shri Kishore Bhaduri, the learned counsel representing the employer; besides Shri Sudeep Agrawal, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 5. The sequence of events reveals that the employee by name Khirod Soni was engaged as a 'daily wage worker' by the employer (Raipur Development Authority) working as a 'Sweeper' from the year 1982 onwards. Later, as per order dated 11.08.1995 (where the employee has been shown at Sl.No. 14), the status of the employee was changed as a 'work charged and contingency paid employee' on a given scale of pay and he was continuing as above. 6. While so, Annexure P/2 show cause notice dated 26.05.2012 was issued by the employer, to the employee, referring to the unauthorized absence on the part of the employee and proposing action in terms of Rule 13(Seven), read with Rule 14(One)(Two)(Three) of the Rules, 1975. Written explanation, if any, was required to be submitted within 15 days. Alongwith the show cause notice, the statement of imputation and the factual statement as to the particulars of absence of the employee from the year 1995', till date, were given, showing that the employee was absent on 'leave without wages' for 706 days and that he was continuing on unauthorized absence from 21.03.2012 onwards. 7. Alongwith the show cause notice, the statement of imputation and the factual statement as to the particulars of absence of the employee from the year 1995', till date, were given, showing that the employee was absent on 'leave without wages' for 706 days and that he was continuing on unauthorized absence from 21.03.2012 onwards. 7. Since no explanation was forth coming from the part of the employee, a reminder was sent on 20.06.2012 (Annexure R-1/1 in Writ Petition (S) No. 2075 of 2013) in response to which the employee submitted his version dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure R-1/2 in Writ Petition (S) No. 2075 of 2013) produced alongwith the return filed by the 1st Respondent / State; virtually, admitting the factual position mentioned in the show cause notice and pleading for mercy. It was pointed out that he could not submit the reply on time because of family problems and due to health reasons and accordingly, an apology was made assuring that he would never let the cause to be repeated in the future. However, without any regard to the same, Annexure P/1 order dated 01.10.2012 came to be passed by the 2nd Respondent / Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority; removing the Petitioner / Appellant from the service, making it clear that it was in 'anticipation of the approval' of the competent authority i.e. the Board of Directors. 8. Shocked and aggrieved by the proceedings, the employee submitted Annexure P/3 representation dated 29.10.2012 seeking to withdraw Annexure P/1 order and permit him to join duty, which however, came to be turned down as per communication dated 20.11.2012. This made the employee to challenge Annexure P/1 order dated 01.10.2012 and the subsequent order rejecting the representation by filing the writ petition seeking to have them set aside and to direct the employer to reinstate him with full wages and other consequential benefits. 9. Return was filed on behalf of the employer pointing out that the writ Petitioner was only a 'work charged and contingent employee' governed by the Rule 14 of the Rule, 1975 and that during his tenure of service from the year 1996 till date of issuance of show cause notice, he was remaining unauthorizedly absent on several occasions. 9. Return was filed on behalf of the employer pointing out that the writ Petitioner was only a 'work charged and contingent employee' governed by the Rule 14 of the Rule, 1975 and that during his tenure of service from the year 1996 till date of issuance of show cause notice, he was remaining unauthorizedly absent on several occasions. Copies of the notices issued and the relevant particulars were given in a tabulated form (referring to 64 different instances) commencing from the first one on 01.03.1996 (dates given as 01.03.06, 30.05.06 and 20.09.06 appear to be mistake; in place of 01.03.96, 30.04.96 and 20.09.96). It is stated in paragraph 2 that, despite issuance of notice, the employee did not join duty, but filed his explanation admitting the guilt vide letter dated 29.10.2012 after passing the Annexure P/1 termination order on 01.10.2012. It is pointed out that since the employee failed to answer the charges within the stipulated time, holding of a departmental enquiry was considered to be a mere formality and hence the order of termination from the service was quite proper. 10. The Respondent / State also filed a separate return, where also the absence of duty for a period of 706 days is mentioned; however conceding that for the said period, leave was sanctioned without wages. The version given by the employer is virtually reproduced to the effect that since the employee had admitted his guilt, no detailed enquiry was required and hence the writ petition might be dismissed. 11. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge observed that the unauthorized absence of 706 days was spread over the years from 1996 to 2012 and that admittedly, leave was sanctioned without wages for the said period. After issuing the show cause notice, no enquiry was conducted and in the said circumstance, the contention of the writ Petitioner, that the order of termination passed without conducting any enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing was bad, was liable to be sustained. The learned Judge observed that mere issuance of charge-sheet itself will not suffice and the Department ought to have taken the charge-sheet to a logical conclusion by establishing the charges in a departmental enquiry; in the absence of which the order of termination was liable to be interdicted, which was ordered accordingly. The learned Judge observed that mere issuance of charge-sheet itself will not suffice and the Department ought to have taken the charge-sheet to a logical conclusion by establishing the charges in a departmental enquiry; in the absence of which the order of termination was liable to be interdicted, which was ordered accordingly. At the same time, the learned Judge reserved the right of the employer, if they so desired, to conduct a departmental enquiry against the employee for the charges levelled against him. It was accordingly that, reinstatement was ordered; however denying the back-wages, applying the principles of 'no work no pay' and also taking note of the past conduct of the Petitioner / Appellant as reflected from the Annexures attached to the charge-sheet. 12. Met with the situation, the employer sought to review the judgment by filing Review Petition No. 161 of 2019, but the same came to be dismissed as per order dated 22.10.2019 holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. This made the employer to challenge the same by filing Writ Appeal No. 112 of 2020. 13. As mentioned already, the various instances of 'unauthorized absence' of the employee have been given in a tabulated form from the part of the employer while issuing Annexure P/2 show cause notice (from 01.03.1996 till the 63rd instance on 18.04.2012 and the 64th instance dated 21.03.2012 onwards). The various instances from 1 to 63 cover the total period of 706 days' spread over a period of about 16 years (01.03.1996 till 18.04.2012). There is a case for the employee that he had been submitting applications for leave and all the above instances have been considered and sanctioned as 'leave without wages', as per the proceedings issued by the employer themselves. Copies of the various orders passed by the employer on different dates, granting 'leave without wages' for the different periods have been collectively produced as Annexure P/4 alongwith the writ petition. The fact that 'leave without wages' was sanctioned for the said period of 706 days during the period of 16 years from 01.03.1996 till 18.04.2012 is discernible from the proceedings issued by the employer and the said factual position is conceded by Shri Kishore Bhaduri, the learned counsel appearing for the employer. 14. The fact that 'leave without wages' was sanctioned for the said period of 706 days during the period of 16 years from 01.03.1996 till 18.04.2012 is discernible from the proceedings issued by the employer and the said factual position is conceded by Shri Kishore Bhaduri, the learned counsel appearing for the employer. 14. However, reference is made by the learned counsel for the employer to the 64th instance where the employee was remaining on unauthorized absence 'from 21.03.2012' till the issuance of Annexure P/2 show cause notice. As a matter of fact, the contents of the show cause notice, read alongwith Annexure P/1 order of termination, show that the punishment of removal from the service has been ordered projecting the 'unauthorized absence' of the employee on various occasions including the 706 days' (for which leave without wages was sanctioned), during the past 16 years. Since the entire period of 706 days' covered by the instances at Sl.No. 1 (dated 01.03.1996) till and including the 63rd instance (dated 18.04.2012) are the days for which leave without wage has been sanctioned; it is quite evident that the explanation / reason stated from the part of the employee for his absence was found at genuine to have the leave sanctioned, condoning the absence, though it was with the rider that no wages would be payable for the said period. After having condoned the absence of 706 days, treating the same as 'leave without wages', there was absolutely no cause or reason for the employer to have the said part included in the show cause notice, asking explanation of the employee, ultimately leading to termination of the service vide Annexure P/1. In other words, clubbing of the period of absence already treated as 'leave without wages' would not constitute an instance of misconduct, to be explained; as it no more remained to be a misconduct in terms of the relevant Rule 12(e) of the Rules,1975. 15. Now, the only remaining instance involving unauthorized absence is the one at Sl.No. 64 i.e. from 21.03.2012. 15. Now, the only remaining instance involving unauthorized absence is the one at Sl.No. 64 i.e. from 21.03.2012. The reply submitted by the employee on 30.08.2012 (Annexure R-1/2 produced alongwith the reply filed by the State) is to the following effect: ^^izfr eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh] jk;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k] jk;iqj ¼N-x-½- fo"k;%& dk;Z esa mifLFkfr ds laca/k esaA i= Øekad 857@Lo@foizk@12 jk;iqj fnukad 20-05-2012 egksn;] luez fuosnu gS fd mijksDr i= ds fo"k; esa eq>ls xyrh gqbZ gS ikfjokfjd ijs'kkfu;ksa ,oa Loa; dk LokLF; Bhd ugha gksus ds dkj.k eSa i= dk mRrj le; ij ugha ns ldk g¡wA eSa {kek izkFkhZ gw¡ eSa Hkfo"; esa dk;Z ij fu;fer mifLFkr jgwaXkkA d`i;k esjh izkFkZuk Lohdkj dhft,A fnukad 30-08-2012 vkosnd f[kjksn lksuh Lohij jk;iqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k jk;iqj ¼N-x-½** As per the above reply, the employee has accepted the position and has requested politely, to have the lapse condoned, having occurred because of the family problems and also due to his health reasons; by virtue of which he could not even submit the reply on time; thus, tendering apology and seeking for indulgence, assuring that he would never cause it to be repeated. The specific case of the employee is that, the order of termination was too harsh and not sustainable so far as no domestic enquiry was conducted, which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge, in turn leading to quashing the order of termination and directing reinstatement. 16. According to the employer, no formal enquiry is envisaged under the Rules, 1975. It is pointed out by Shri Kishore Bhaduri, the learned counsel appearing for the employer that the employee herein is not a regular government employee, which is discernible from Rule 2(b) and Rule 2(e). Verdict passed by the learned Single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh Jati Singh vs. State of Patiala & East Punjab States Union & Another reported in AIR 1955 PEPSU 25 to the effect that a contingent employee is not a regular employee is cited in this regard. Referring to the relevant provisions in the Rules, it is pointed out that the proceedings have been finalized in conformity with the said provisions of law and no full fledged enquiry was necessary, especially in view of the admission of guilt by the employee. Referring to the relevant provisions in the Rules, it is pointed out that the proceedings have been finalized in conformity with the said provisions of law and no full fledged enquiry was necessary, especially in view of the admission of guilt by the employee. That apart, by issuing Annexure P/2 show cause notice, clearly specifying the various instances and giving the particulars of the misconduct, besides pointing out the proposed action under the particular provisions of the Rules and granting opportunity to submit written explanation, the principles of the natural justice also stand satisfied. 17. The purpose of domestic enquiry is to ascertain the factual position. It is quite a fundamental rule that the admitted fact does not require to be proved. When the misconduct on the part of the employee as to the unauthorized absence is specifically pointed out in Annexure P/2, referring to the instances and the relevant provisions of the Rules, 1975 with regard to the proposal and the course of action to be pursued and when the employee has admitted his guilt vide Annexure R-1/2 explanation dated 30.08.2012 (extracted above), no further 'fact finding exercise' was needed to be pursued. As such, we find force in the submissions made from the part of the employer and do not find any merit in the contention from the part of the employee that Annexure P/1 order would be vitiated for not having conducted domestic enquiry. For the very same reason, the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge that the proceedings are vitiated and that the employer could conduct a fresh enquiry, if they so desired, is not correct or sustainable. But, the question is, whether quashing of Annexure P/1 order of termination ordered by the learned Single Judge warrants any interference, if the verdict passed by the learned Judge to that extent is sustainable on other grounds. 18. We have already noted that, though various instances of 'unauthorized absence' of the employee have been noted in Annexure P/2 show cause notice, which led to issuance of Annexure P/1 termination order, all the 63 instances from 01.03.1996 to the 63rd instance on 18.04.2012 covering a total period of 706 days, in 16 years, cannot be a cause of action for the employer to proceed against the employee, insofar as 'leave without wages' has admittedly been sanctioned for the said period. As it stands so, the admission of guilt vide the explanation dated 30.08.2012 (Annexure R-1/2) can only be confined to the 64th instance of unauthorized absence from 21.03.2012, till the date of the issuance of show cause notice. 19. If the version of the employee with reference to the family problems and health reasons mentioned in Annexure R-1/2 reply dated 30.08.2012 is genuine, whether any punishment could have been inflicted; that too, 'capital punishment' by the employer, is the point to be considered. There is no application of mind on the part of the employer in this regard, when Annexure P/1 order of termination was passed on 01.10.2012 and even while rejecting the subsequent representation dated 29.10.2012 filed by the employee (as per the communication dated 20.11.2012). It is settled law that punishment shall always be proportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct. Here, the misconduct (treating it as to be proved because of the admission) is only with regard to the unauthorized absence from 21.03.2012 onwards and nothing else. Can the employee, who belongs to the lower strata of the society, being a member of the Scheduled Caste and employed in the lowest category as a 'work-charged contingent employee'-engaged as a 'Sweeper'; that too struggling with the family problems and health conditions, could have been kicked out of the service virtually throwing him and the members of the family to the streets, is the question. 20. It has been held by the Apex Court on many a time, that the capital punishment by way of dismissal / removal from service is not proper for unauthorized absence for a short while. As it stands so, we find it difficult to sustain Annexure P/1 order of termination of service for the absence from 21.03.2012, being highly disproportionate to the alleged / proven misconduct of unauthorized absence for a short period by a contingent employee, who is stated as not a regular employee. As such, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge interdicting Annexure P/1 and directing reinstatement does not require interference. 21. Another important aspect is to be noted is that, a specific pleading has been raised by the employee in the writ petition, particularly, under Ground No. 9.2, that the 2nd Respondent has not obtained any prior approval from the Board of Directors before issuing the order of removal and hence it is bad. 21. Another important aspect is to be noted is that, a specific pleading has been raised by the employee in the writ petition, particularly, under Ground No. 9.2, that the 2nd Respondent has not obtained any prior approval from the Board of Directors before issuing the order of removal and hence it is bad. This aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Rule 14 of the Rule, 1975 reads as follows: ^^14- 'kkfLr;ksa dks vf/kjksfir djus ds fy;s izfØ;k & ¼1½ fu;e 13 ds [kaM ¼N%½] ¼lkr½ rFkk ¼vkB½ esa fofufnsZ"V dh xbZ 'kkfLr;ksa esa ls dksbZ Hkh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus okyk vkns'k& ¼,d½ deZpkjh dks] mlds fo:) dk;Zokgh ds izLrko dh rFkk mu vfHkdFkuksa dh] ftuds fd vk/kkj ij ;g dk;Zokgh dh tkuk izLrkfor gS] fyf[kr esa lwpuk] tc ,slk djuk lEHko gks] nsus ¼nks½ deZpkjh dks] mlds fo:) yxk;s x;s vfHkdFkuksa ds ckjs esa viuh fLFkfr Li"V djus dk ;Fkk lk/; 'kh/kz volj nsus] ¼rhu½ ,sls Li"Vhdj.k ij] ;fn dksbZ gks] fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ gh fn;k tk;sxk vU;Fkk ugh% ijUrq ;g vkSj fd & ¼1½ fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks] l{ke izkf/kdjh ds vkns'k ds fcuk lsok ls inP;qr ugha fd;k tk;sxk] vkSj ¼2½ tgka foHkkxk/;{k] jkT; dh lqj{kk ds vk/kkj ij fdlh deZpkjh dh lsok ls gVkuk vko';d le>s] ogk¡ ,slk djuk vko';d ugha gksxkA ¼2½ mifu;e ¼1½ esa fufnZ"V fyf[kr vkns'k deZpkjh dks ifjnRr fd;s tkus ij rRdky izHkkoh gksXkk vkSj deZpkjh }kjk mldk ifjnku Lohdkj djus ls bUdkj djus dh n'kk esa] og vkns'k ml LFkku fd] ftlesa fd og gS lwpuk&Qyd ij fpidk fn;k tk;sxk vkSj lwpuk&Qyd ij mlds bl izdkj fpidk fn;s tkus ls ;gh le>k tk;sxk fd og vkns'k ml ij rkfey dj fn;k x;k gSA** 22. From the above, it is explicitly clear that the 'proviso 1' to Rule 14(1) mandates that no employee governed by the said Rules shall be sent out from the service without obtaining sanction from the Competent Authority, who is none other than the 'Board of Directors'. Even a casual reference to Annexure P/1 order of termination shows that, no such sanction was obtained by the 2nd Respondent / Chief Executive Officer before removing the employee from service, from the Board of Directors. Even a casual reference to Annexure P/1 order of termination shows that, no such sanction was obtained by the 2nd Respondent / Chief Executive Officer before removing the employee from service, from the Board of Directors. On the other hand, what is mentioned herein is that the removal from service ordered by the 2nd Respondent / Chief Executive Officer was in anticipation of the approval from the Competent Authority; which is not enough. We find it appropriate to extract Annexure P/1 order for easy reference: IMAGE 23. From the last sentence of the above order, it is quite clear that it has been given immediate effect; thus, removing the employee from the service forthwith as ordered by the 2nd Respondent / Chief Executive Officer, which is an action contrary to the mandate of the first proviso to Rule 14(1). To put it more clear, the order to be passed by the 2nd Respondent could only be an order consequential to the 'approval order' passed by the Competent Authority i.e. the Board of Directors. In the instant case, no such approval having been given by the Board of Directors, Annexure P/1 order of removal passed by the 2nd Respondent / Chief Executive Officer 'in anticipation of the approval' of the Board of Directors / Competent Authority is not sustainable in the eye of the law. As such, the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the Annexure P/1 order of removal of the service does not warrant any interference. 24. With regard to the claim for back-wages, it has been denied by the learned Single Judge, applying the principle of 'no work no pay' and also taking note of the past conduct of the employee as reflected from the Annexures attached to the Annexure P/2 show cause notice, (as clearly mentioned in the penultimate sentence of paragraph 11). We do not find any reason to take a different view, especially when the misconduct on the part of the employee stands conceded. 25. With regard to the liberty given by the learned Single Judge to the employer to conduct fresh enquiry, if they so desired, we are of the view that, it is not necessary in the instant case; firstly, for the reason that the misconduct of unauthorized absence for the sole surviving instance at Sl.No. 64 (i.e. from 21.03.2012 onwards) stands admitted and no further fact finding exercise is necessary. Since the punishment of removal from the service is not correct or sustainable, being harsh, as noted earlier, the appropriate punishment for the said extent of unauthorized absence, even if sustainable to be inflicted, can never be anything more than the 'denial of back-wages' as already ordered by the learned Single Judge. It has been held by the Apex Court on many occasions that denial of back-wages or even a portion of the same could be taken as appropriate punishment, with reference to the nature and gravity of the proven misconduct. In the said circumstance, we hold that 'denial of backwages' shall be treated as the appropriate punishment inflicted upon of the employee for the proven misconduct of unauthorized absence for the period from 21.03.2012, till date concerned. 26. In view of the above discussion, we hold that no interference is warranted in Writ Appeal No. 368 of 2019, except to the extent of making it clear that no further enquiry requires to be conducted and that 'denial of back-wages' ordered by the learned Single Judge would be treated as the adequate and appropriate punishment for the proven misconduct. The Appellant / employee shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The said appeal stands disposed off accordingly. 27. There is no merit in Writ Appeal No.112 of 2020 filed by the employer. It stands dismissed accordingly.