ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition. 2. Brief facts given rise to filing of writ petition and this appeal are that the writ appellant while working as constable in RAC Battalion of Police Department in the State of Rajasthan was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry by issuance of the charge sheet dated 16.01.2007 (Annexure-3) on as many as three charges. 3. The first charge was that having proceeded on sanctioned leave on 06.05.2006, which was only upto 20.05.2006, he did not return and continued on unauthorized absence without any leave sanctioned for the period after 20.05.2006. 4. The second charge was that without any sanctioned leave the appellant remained unauthorizedly absent for 118 days and appeared for duty as late as on 15.09.2006. 5. The third charge was that on earlier as many as 76 occasions, the appellant had remained unauthorizedly absent for which penalty of a total of 22 days R.I. and 56 days of PD was imposed and warning was imposed on three occasions and 809 days of extra ordinary leave was granted to him during his service. In addition to that, he has also been visited with penalty on eight occasions imposing withholding of five increments without cumulative effect and censure on four occasions and in this manner, the appellant-employee has failed to improve and has become incorrigible and in-disciplined employee as he is not interested in discharging his duties and thus liable for disciplinary action. 6. On such charges, departmental enquiry was proceeded with. After reply was obtained, evidence was collected and then the disciplinary authority found that charges were proved and imposed a penalty of removal from service taking into consideration not only the charges against the appellant was proved but also that in the past also, he had been visited with penalty on number of occasions which included large number of cases related to an unauthorized absence. When no relief was granted even in appeal, finally writ petition was filed which was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this court. 7. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that as far as imposition of penalty of removal from service is concerned, it is wholly unwarranted and shockingly disproportionate. When no relief was granted even in appeal, finally writ petition was filed which was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this court. 7. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that as far as imposition of penalty of removal from service is concerned, it is wholly unwarranted and shockingly disproportionate. Relying upon Supreme Court decision in the case of Central Industrial Security Force & Others Versus Abrar Ali, AIR 2017 SC 200 and various judgments referred to therein, it has been argued that in the aforesaid case, a similar combination of unauthorized absence and repeated act of unauthorized absence was meeted out with imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement by interfering with the order of imposition of penalty of removal from service. 8. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in the long service tenure of more that 13 years, there may be number of occasions of some minor misconduct committed by an employee for which he has been already punished. If that is also taken into consideration at the time of imposing penalty of misconduct of unauthorized absence of 118 days, that would amount to double jeopardy. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the order of removal, has clearly held and regularized the period of absence of 118 days as leave without pay, meaning thereby that the period of absence was ultimately regularized. If that be so, the order of removal from service on the ground of misconduct could not stand together with the same, therefore, for this reason also the imposition of penalty of removal from service was arbitrary, unwarranted excessive, harsh, illegal and liable to be interfered with. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State would argue that the appellant was member of Disciplined Force. The charge against the appellant is not an isolated case or a short period of unauthorized absence. On the basis of the evidence, led before the Disciplinary Authority, which mostly turned on records, it has been proved that the appellant had remained unauthorizedly absent for a long period of 118 days. Though initially, a leave was granted to him for a short period, thereafter, the appellant ought to have reported for duty. The appellant over staying leave period for such a long period clearly amounts to misconduct. Though initially, a leave was granted to him for a short period, thereafter, the appellant ought to have reported for duty. The appellant over staying leave period for such a long period clearly amounts to misconduct. Further submission is that this is not the only instance in his service. Large number of punishments have been imposed on the ground of unauthorized absence in the past. He further submits that not only that, the appellant otherwise is an incorrigible employee who has been subjected to penalty time and again for other kind of misconducts where warning, censure, withholding of increments was passed. He would submit that the cumulative effect of repeated misconducts, which though individually taken would only be minor misconduct, taking into consideration incorrigibility, coupled with long unauthorized absence of 118 days may warrant imposition of major penalty. Relying upon the judgment in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Harihar Gopal 1969 (3) SLR it has been submitted that merely because the period of absence has been regularized as leave without pay, in the absence of any provision in the rule, the order of removal from service cannot be said to have been nullified. 11. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon several judgments i.e. B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1995 (6) SCC 749 , Maan Singh Vs. Union of India & Others 2003 (3) SCC 464 , U.B. Gadhe and Others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement (P) LTD. 2007 (13) SCC 634 & Tushar D. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and Another 2009 (11) SCC 678 . 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. Union of India & Others 2003 (3) SCC 464 , U.B. Gadhe and Others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement (P) LTD. 2007 (13) SCC 634 & Tushar D. Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and Another 2009 (11) SCC 678 . 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. The charges on which the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry are as below:- ^^vkjksi u-01 ;g fd vki fnuakd 06-05-2006 ls 20-05-2006 rd Lohd`r 'kqnk 15 fnu v}Zosru vodk'k ij jokuk gq, FksA vkidks vodk'kksijkUr fnukad 21-05-2006 dks nksigj iqrZ viuh M~;wVh gsrq cVkfy;u eq[;ky; dksVk mifLFkr gksuk Fkk] ijUrq vki fu;r frfFk dks viuh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr ugha gksdj LoSPNk vuqifLFkr gks x;sA vkjksi u- 02 ;g fd vki fnuakd 21-05-2006 ls fcuk Lohd`r vodk'k o lwpuk ds LoSPNkiwoZd 118 fnu vuqifLFkr jgdj fnuakd 15-09-2006 dks nksigj ckn viuh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gq,A vkidh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ckcr~ bl dk;kZy; ls pkj ,oa dEiuh dk;kZy; ls ikap fjdksy uksfVl tkjh fd;s ds mijkUr Hkh vki M~;wVh gsrq le; ij mifLFkr ugha gq,A vki }kjk LoSPNk M~;wVh ls fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds vuqifLFkr jguk vkids drZO;ksa ds izfr mnklhurk rFkk jktdh; lsok esa drbZ :fp u ysus dk izrhd gSA vkjksi u- 03 ;g fd vki fnukad 03-08-1993 ds fu;qfDr 'kqnk gS rFkk vkius vYi lsokdky esa iwoZ esa 76 voljksa ij LosPN;k vuqifLFkr jg pqds gSA rFkk LoSPNk vuqifLFkr gksus ds vkfn gks pqds gSaA vuqifLFkr gksus ds dlwj esa vkidks 22 fnu vkj-vkbZ-] 56 fnukad ih-Mh-] 3 ckj psrkouh dh ltk ,oa vuqifLFkr vof/k dk dqy 809 fnu dk vla/kkj.k vodk'k bZ-vks-,y- Lohd`r fd;k tk pqdk gSA blds vfrfjDr LoSfPNd vuqifLFkr ,oa vuq'kklughurk ds vkjksiksa ij vkidks foHkkxh; tkap fu;e 17 lhlh, esa 8 ckj i`Fkd&i`Fkd dqy 5 okf"kZd osruo`f};ka fcuk Hkfo"; izHkko ls jksdus rFkk 4 ckj ifjfuUnk dh ltk ls nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gSA vkidks vius vkpj.k esa lq/kkj dk iw.kZ volj nsus ds mijkUr Hkh vkius vius vkpj.k esa fdlh izdkj dk lq/kkj ugha fd;k rFkk vki M~;wVh ls vuqifLFkr jgus ,oa vuq'kklughurk ds vkfn gks pqds gSaA blls Li"V gS fd vki }kjk jktdh; lsok esa drbZ :fp ugha yh tk jgh gSA^^ 14. A perusal of the charges against the appellant would show that it was not a case of singular instance of having remained unauthorizedly absent. A perusal of the charges against the appellant would show that it was not a case of singular instance of having remained unauthorizedly absent. The charges, amongst making allegation of having remained unauthorizedly absent for 118 days, we are also that in the past, number of penalties were imposed on him including number of occasions when penalty for having remained unauthorizedly absent was repeatedly imposed. 15. In the departmental enquiry, after collection of evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority not only found proved that the appellant had remained unauthorizedly absent for 118 days but also recorded specific findings of facts based on previous orders of imposition of penalty that the appellant is habitual of remaining absent and become incorrigible, not interested in performing his duty as member of disciplined force which eventually led to imposition of penalty of removal from service. Even in such a situation, the Disciplinary Authority did not impose the extreme penalty of dismissal from service which would have been future disqualification but removal which is not disqualification to take up any other employment. 16. It is well settled legal position in plethora of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that as far as quantum of penalty is concerned, ordinarily it is not to be interfered with by the constitutional courts in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The only exceptional situation where such interference would be warranted is that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and can be categorized as 'shockingly disproportionate'. 17. As to whether in the present case, the punishment of removal imposed upon the appellant is grossly disproportionate and liable to be interfered with, number of decisions have been cited at the bar by learned counsel for the parties. 18. Undisputedly, the appellant was member of disciplinary force. In one of the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the case of Maan Singh (Supra), the legal position in this regard was examined by their Lordships in the Supreme Court. In that case, the relevant Rule contained in the service Rules, applicable to the delinquent employees provided that extreme penalty shall be awarded only for the gravest act of misconduct or it has the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for the police service. In that case, the relevant Rule contained in the service Rules, applicable to the delinquent employees provided that extreme penalty shall be awarded only for the gravest act of misconduct or it has the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for the police service. It was further provided that in making such an award length of service of the offenders and his claim for pension shall be taken into account. It was held as below:- "After analysing the said provision, this Court in Ram Singh's case held that Rule 16.2(1) consists of two parts, firstly, dismissal shall be awarded for the gravest acts of misconduct and secondly, cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service and the length of service of the offender and his claim for pension should be taken into account in an appropriate case. The second part is referable to a misconduct which, by itself, may not warrant an order of dismissal and may be a ground to take a lenient view of giving an opportunity to reform and even after giving such opportunities, if the delinquent officer proved to be incorrigible and found completely unfit to remain in service then in order to maintain discipline in the service appropriate punishments can be given. Therefore, when the charge against the appellants in each of these cases is habitual absence for long periods on several occasions unauthorisedly, the view taken by the disciplinary authority is justified." 19. It was further opined that where even after giving several opportunities, if the delinquent officer is proved to be incorrigible and found completely unfit to remain in service then, in order to maintain discipline in the service, appropriate punishment can be imposed. 20. Finally applying the aforesaid principle, it was held that when the charge against the delinquent employee in number of cases of habitual absence for long period on several occasion was proved, the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority was held justified. 21. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force (supra) also proceeds on application of the aforesaid settled principles in Para 3 of the said decision. 22. In that case, one of the charges was that the delinquent employee had become habitual in committing indiscipline and disobedience. 22. In that case, one of the charges was that the delinquent employee had become habitual in committing indiscipline and disobedience. References were made to two major penalties of deduction to pay and one minor penalty of deduction of seven days salary earlier also. The Disciplinary Authority, on facts as stated above, found that the delinquent employee did not improve inspite of being punished earlier. The High Court however held that a fresh inquiry cannot be initiated into a misconduct for which a delinquent had already suffered a penalty. This view of the High Court was not accepted by the Supreme Court and it was held as below: "We disagree with the finding of the High Court as we are of the view that the Respondent was not being tried again for previous misconduct. As the Respondent did not improve in spite of being punished earlier and had become habitual in indiscipline and disorderliness, the Disciplinary Authority rightly found Charge No. 3 as proved. The desirability of continuance of the Respondent was considered on the basis of his past conduct which does not amount to double jeopardy. In any event, past conduct of a delinquent employee can be taken into consideration while imposing penalty. We are supported in this view by a Judgement of this Court in Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 102 held as follows: "30....... But in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require." 23. The principle as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Maan Singh (supra) was therefore reiterated in the case of Central Industrial Security Force (supra). However in the case of Central Industrial Security Force (supra) the Supreme Court altered the punishment of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement, taking into consideration that it was a case of unauthorized absence of only five days and earlier instances of having been found guilty of desertion of force was on three occasions. Juxtapositioning aforesaid gravity of absconder with the penalty of removal, the Supreme Court altered the punishment to that of compulsory retirement. 24. Juxtapositioning aforesaid gravity of absconder with the penalty of removal, the Supreme Court altered the punishment to that of compulsory retirement. 24. It goes without saying that the order was based on the settled principle on interference where the penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. 25. Whether in a given case penalty is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, will depend upon facts and circumstances of every case and no straight jacket formula can be laid down. It may depend upon magnitude of the misconduct. In category of cases where the members of Discipline Force are charged of unauthorized absence, as to what kind of punishment should be imposed, would depend upon the period of unauthorized absence, frequency of occasion on which such conduct has been repeated, penalties which have been imposed in the past, total length of service and other relevant circumstances. 26. A distinction can always be drawn where a short period of unauthorized absence coupled with few occasions of earlier unauthorized absence may be visited with a penalty short of dismissal or removal and a case where the period of unauthorized absence has been long, preceded by large number of occasions and instances of unauthorized absence coupled with many other punishments. The result in both the cases even if it is a case of member of Discipline Force, may be different. 27. Present is one such situation where the case of the present appellant, on facts, is distinguishable from the case of Central Industrial Security Force (supra). That was also a case of member of Discipline Force. The operative reason, as is reflected from the order, to reduce the punishment from that of removal to compulsory retirement was five days absence preceded by three occasions of unauthorized absence. In that factual scenario, their Lordships in the Supreme Court found that it was a proper case to reduce penalty to compulsory retirement. 28. However the factual background of the present case are different. Present is a case where the charge of having remained unauthorizedly absent not for five days but for as many as 118 days has been found proved. Not only this, the previous occasions on which the appellant has been found having remained unauthorizedly absent are not few but as many as 76 in number. Present is a case where the charge of having remained unauthorizedly absent not for five days but for as many as 118 days has been found proved. Not only this, the previous occasions on which the appellant has been found having remained unauthorizedly absent are not few but as many as 76 in number. To add gravity to this, are instances of imposition of other kind of penalties also for different kind of misconduct. Even though these misconduct, taken individually may not be treated as cases of imposition of major penalty, but as has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Maan Singh (supra) cumulative effect may add to the gravity of the main charge, in the present case, unauthorized absence of 118 days. 29. It is difficult for us to hold that imposition of penalty of removal from service on a member of Discipline Force who has been found to have remained unauthorizedly absenting for 118 days with the background of repetition of such instance 76 times coupled with other penalty in a total period of service of 13 years, is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Therefore, the present case is similar on facts also to the background in which penalty was imposed in the case of Maan Singh (supra) as compared to the case of Central Industrial Security Force (supra), relied upon by the counsel for the appellant. 30. One of the arguments of counsel for appellant that as the period of absence was regularized as leave without pay, penalty of removal could not be sustained, deserves to be rejected at the threshold in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Harihar Gopal 1969 (3) SLR 274 (SC) which was considered in the case of Maan Singh (supra) as below: "In Harihar Gopal's case this Court noticed that the delinquent officer in failing to report for duty and remaining absent without obtaining leave had acted in a manner irresponsibly and unjustifiedly; that, on the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the charge was proved that he remained absent without obtaining leave in advance; that the order granting leave was made after the order terminating the employment and it was made only for the purpose of maintaining a correct record of the duration of service and adjustment of leave due to delinquent officer and for regulairsing his absence from duty. This Court's attention was not invited to any rule governing the respondent's service conditions under which an order regularisng absence from duty subsequent to termination of employment had the effect of invalidating termination. Thus, this Court concluded that it could not be held that the authority after terminating the employment of delinquent officer intended to pass an order invalidating that earlier order by sanctioning leave so that he was to be deemed not to have remained absent from duty without leave duly granted." 31. In view of above consideration we do not find any merit in the argument of the appeal. Therefore appeal has to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.