JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 15.05.2012, whereby the respondent no. 4 has dismissed the petitioner from service. Further prayer has been made for quashing the appellate order dated 08.04.2013, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order of dismissal dated 15.05.2015, has been dismissed by the appellate authority. Petitioner has also prayed that after quashment of the said orders, the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed as Police Constable in the State of Jharkhand under the Department of Home. Thereafter, he was posted at several places. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was posted at Dhurwa Police Station, on 16.12.2007, he left office without any intimation and thereafter on 08.01.2008, he was put under suspension and on 15.05.2012, when he did not report at the headquarters, he was dismissed from service in a regular departmental proceeding. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that order of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner remained absent for 22 days as per the charge and it was a case of unauthorized absence. Learned counsel argues that for unauthorized absence of 22 days, dismissal from service was not warranted as the same was under the compelling circumstances which was perhaps not considered by the respondent-authorities while passing the impugned order. Referring to the several medical prescriptions annexed with the writ petition, learned counsel submits that as the petitioner was suffering from various ailments, which is not in dispute, as a result of which he was compelled to stay at home. After recovery, when he came to join his duty, he learnt that the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter, order of dismissal was passed following the departmental proceeding. After recovery, when he came to join his duty, he learnt that the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter, order of dismissal was passed following the departmental proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that the enquiry officer without considering the genuine cause of absence of the petitioner from duty on the ground of various ailments, has submitted the report to the effect that the absence was willful, which is perverse and arbitrary and the order of dismissal based on the said enquiry report also vitiates. Learned counsel further argues that for the aforesaid facts and reasons, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside and a direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as he is just 45 years old and 15 years of service is still left and he is able to discharge the duties assigned to him by the Home Department. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors., (2004) 4 SCC 560 ; (II) Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, (2009) 15 SCC 620 ; & (III) Union of India & Anr. v. R.K. Sharma [Civil Appeal No. 4059 of 2015, disposed of on 30.06.2022]. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was a member of police force and in the police force absolute discipline is required to be maintained. Learned counsel submits that Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in Police Force even in case of unauthorized absence for one day, the dismissal from service is justified. Learned counsel submits that petitioner being member of disciplined force deserted the office without any intimation and information. Even in the departmental proceeding he failed to appear. Learned counsel submits that when he was asked to get himself treated in RIMS, he left the hospital and thereafter, did not turn-up. Learned counsel further argues that medical prescriptions annexed in the writ petition cannot be taken into consideration because nowhere it has been mentioned that petitioner had undergone any treatment in a recognized government hospital or any private hospital. Learned counsel submits that it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere and as such, order of dismissal is fully justified. Learned counsel submits that it is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere and as such, order of dismissal is fully justified. 7. Be that as it may, having heard the parties across the bar and upon perusal of the documents brought on record, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: (I) Admittedly the petitioner is slapped with the punishment of dismissal from service for the charge of 22 days unauthorized absence which appears to be too harsh and disproportionate and not commensurate with the nature of charge proved against the petitioner. (II) The Enquiry Officer though has held petitioner guilty of the charges but has not come with the finding that the unauthorized absence was intentional and not on account of compelling circumstances. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Krishnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2013) 3 SCC 178], has held that: “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. 19. In the present case the inquiry officer on appreciation of evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold that the absence was wilful; the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty. 20. The question relating to jurisdiction of the court in judicial review in a departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [ (2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919] wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 95, para 25) “25. It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with.” 9. In the instant case nothing has been placed on record to show that the absence was not due to compelling circumstances rather, the Enquiry Officer did not come with any finding on the medical report submitted by the petitioner. The ailment of the petitioner was also not disputed as respondents themselves have referred the petitioner for treatment in RIMS, Ranchi. Admittedly, in case where the authorities have affirmed the order of punishment, judicial review is not attracted. However, when the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and shocks conscience of the Court, the judicial review is attracted and order of punishment can be interfered with by this Court. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 , has held that where delinquent upon being charged of the misconduct fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence, punishment of removal was not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess of allegations and resultantly, the appellants were directed to reinstate the Respondent 1 forthwith. 11. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncement, the order of punishment dated 15.05.2012 and appellate order dated 08.04.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service but without any back wages 12. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.