ORDER : 1. This is an appeal, filed by the appellant-original petitioner, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, Dated: 24.01.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 15418 of 2019, whereby, the learned Single Judge confirmed the order of dismissal from service of the appellant, passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority vide order dated 28.09.2018 and 20.03.2019, respectively. 2. The brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present appeal reads thus; The appellant came to be appointed on the post of Assistant Manager with Vijaya Bank vide order dated 15.12.2012 and on completion of the probation period, his services were confirmed. Later on, he was transferred to Jamnagar. 2.1 It is the case of the appellant that he had to proceed on leave with effect from 12.02.2018, on account of medical emergency due to sudden deterioration of health of his mother and his daughter. 2.2 Since, the appellant had not given any intimation, with regard to his absence or leave from his duty to the bank, a communication dated 28.02.2018 was sent to the appellant, intimating him that he had been on unauthorized leave from 12.02.2018. The appellant was also asked to report for duty within the period of three days and to submit his explanation within seven days for his absence from the duty. 2.3 The appellant tendered his explanation, accordingly. However, the same was not accepted and instead, the appellant was issued the charge-sheet on 15.05.2018. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet, but, the same was not accepted and the departmental proceedings were initiated against him. 2.4 On 04.08.2018, the appellant received a letter, along with the findings of the inquiry proceedings, from the bank, whereby, the appellant was asked to submit his representation on the findings of the inquiry. 2.5 Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.09.2018, terminating the services of the appellant and also disqualifying him for future employment. 2.6 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which dismissed the same vide order dated 20.03.2019. 2.5 Pursuant thereto, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.09.2018, terminating the services of the appellant and also disqualifying him for future employment. 2.6 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which dismissed the same vide order dated 20.03.2019. 2.7 Against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, Dated: 28.09.2018, as well as the appellate authority, Dated: 20.03.2019, the appellant preferred the captioned petition, wherein, the learned Single Judge confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authorities. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocates, Mr. Japee, appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has assailed the orders of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority, mainly on the ground of dis-proportionality and severity of the punishment imposed by the Opponent-authorities on the appellant. 3.1 It was submitted that the Opponent-authorities ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the appellant had to proceed on leave due to sudden medical emergency of his mother and daughter and therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service with the observation that the “Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment” is too harsh and unwarranted in the facts of the present case. 3.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Japee, submitted that after the appellant received the communication dated 28.02.2018, he had replied to the same, immediately and had tendered his explanation that due to medical exigency, he was constrained to leave the duty without prior intimation or approval. 3.3 It was submitted that the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, observed that the punishment of dismissal from service, prima facie, would sound harsh, as the appellant had health issues in his family. However, later on, the learned Single Judge took into consideration the past conduct of the appellant and confirmed the orders passed by the disciplinary and the appellate authorities, which is not permissible. It was submitted that, while passing the order of dismissal from service, even the disciplinary authority also has not taken into consideration the past conduct of the appellant, and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have taken the same into consideration. 3.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. It was submitted that, while passing the order of dismissal from service, even the disciplinary authority also has not taken into consideration the past conduct of the appellant, and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have taken the same into consideration. 3.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Japee, submitted that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, ought not to have taken into consideration the past conduct of the appellant, i.e. the appellant had remained absent from duty from 02.06.2017 to 03.10.2017, since, the punishment of reduction to a lower stage, in the time scale of pay, by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect was already imposed on him on 23.01.2018. It was, therefore, urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be quashed and set aside. 3.5 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Japee, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Harshaben B. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2016 JX (Guj.) 1395 and submitted that in almost similar type of case of unauthorized absent from the service, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge of this Court interfered with the order of the disciplinary authority and quashed and set aside the same. 3.5.1 It was submitted that in the present case also, since, the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate, whereby, the petitioner is not only dismissed from service but he is also disqualified from obtaining employment in the future and therefore, the present appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Gadhia, appearing for the Opponents referred to the averments made in the affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellant had, in fact, admitted charges against him before the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority and both the authorities found that the appellant had remained absent unauthorizedly for about six months and considering the fact that the appellant was a senior officer of the rank of Assistant Manager, such a misconduct cannot be condoned and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed by the Opponent-authorities is just and proper. 4.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. 4.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Gadhia, further, submitted that for the earlier misconduct, i.e. unauthorized leave or absent from 02.06.2017 to 03.10.2017, the punishment was imposed on the appellant on 23.01.2018 and within the period of twenty days thereafter, the appellant again proceeded on unauthorized leave or remained absent from duty and therefore, the orders passed by the Opponent-authorities as well as the learned Single Judge do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 4.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Gadhia, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babi, (2014) 4 SCC 108 . 5. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and also perused the material produced on record, which would reveal that the appellant remained absent from duty, without prior intimation or approval, with effect from 12.02.2018. Therefore, the appellant was issued the communication dated 21.02.2018, whereby, he was intimated that he had proceeded on leave un-authorizedly and hence, he may report to the duty immediately and also tender an explanation for his absence, within the period of three days from the date of receipt of the said letter/communication. A copy of the letter dated 21.02.2018 is produced at Page-59 of the compilation. 5.1 It appears that, though, the communication dated 21.02.2018 was duly received by the appellant, he neither replied/responded to the same nor did he report on his duty. 5.1.1 Since, there was no reply/response received to the communication dated 21.02.2018, the Opponent-authorities send another letter dated 28.02.2018, whereby, the appellant was again asked to report on his duty, immediately, failing which the appropriate actions shall be initiated against him. It may be noted that there is also mention of his past conduct and issuance of charge-sheet with regard to the same in the letter dated 28.02.2018. A copy of the letter dated 28.02.2018 is produced at Page-60 of the compilation. 5.1.2 Thereafter, the appellant submitted his reply to the letter dated 28.02.2018. However, the Opponent-authorities did not found the explanation given by the appellant, satisfactory and issued the charge-sheet dated 15.05.2018, a copy of which is produced at Page-20 of the compilation. A copy of the letter dated 28.02.2018 is produced at Page-60 of the compilation. 5.1.2 Thereafter, the appellant submitted his reply to the letter dated 28.02.2018. However, the Opponent-authorities did not found the explanation given by the appellant, satisfactory and issued the charge-sheet dated 15.05.2018, a copy of which is produced at Page-20 of the compilation. During the course of departmental proceedings, the appellant admitted the charges leveled against him and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 28.09.2018, dismissing the appellant from service, while observing as under: “Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.” 5.2 It appears that the appellant challenged the order dated 28.09.2018 before the appellate authority, where, the appellate authority, after taking into consideration the facts of the case and the material before it, dismissed the same. Thereafter, the appellant challenged the orders of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 15418 of 2019, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2022. 5.3 Now, in the present matter, it is mainly contended that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him and that the learned Single Jude also committed an error by taking into consideration the past misconduct of the appellant. 5.3.1 So far as the aforesaid aspect is concerned, we have perused the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28.09.2018, wherein, the disciplinary authority has specifically considered the past conduct of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant, in the said proceedings, had admitted his misconduct before the disciplinary authority and pursuant thereto, lesser punishment was imposed on him on 23.01.2018. 5.4 At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the decision, which is relied on by the learned Advocate, Mr. Gadhia, for the opponent, of the Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others (Supra) “27. Presently, we shall proceed to scrutinize whether the High Court is justified in applying the doctrine of proportionality. Doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court. Doctrine of proportionality in the context of imposition of punishment in service law gets attracted when the court on the analysis of material brought on record comes to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court. In this regard a passage from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, is worth reproducing: “At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee.” 28. In Union of India and Another vs. G. Ganayutham, the Court analysed the conception of proportionality in administrative law in England and India and thereafter addressed itself with regard to the punishment in disciplinary matters and opined that unless the court/tribunal opines in its secondary role that the administrator was, on the material before him, irrational according to Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation and Council of Civil Service Unions vs. Minister for Civil Service norms, the punishment cannot be quashed. 29. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others, the Court, after analyzing the doctrine of proportionality at length, ruled thus: “19. The doctrine of proportionality is, thus, well-recognised concept of judicial review in our jurisprudence. What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of the decision-maker to quantify punishment once the charge of misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to judicial intervention if exercised in a manner which is out of proportion to the fault. Award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. 20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under limited scope of judicial review. 20. One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. 21. In a case like the present one where the misconduct of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from duty for six months but upon being charged of such misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained the reason for his absence by stating that he did not have intention nor desired to disobey the order of higher authority or violate any of the Company’s rules and regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control and, as a matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable employer would have imposed extreme punishment of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the allegations.” 30. After so stating the two-Judge Bench proceeded to say that one of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment is whether any reasonable employer would have imposed such punishment in like circumstances taking into consideration the major, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances after excluding irrelevant matters before imposing punishment. It is apt to note here that in the said case the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for six months and admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he neither had any intention nor desire to disobey the order of superior authority or violated any of the rules or regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control. Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix, the Court interfered with the punishment on the ground of proportionality. The facts in the present case are quite different. Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix, the Court interfered with the punishment on the ground of proportionality. The facts in the present case are quite different. As has been seen from the analysis made by the High Court, it has given emphasis on past misconduct of absence and first time desertion and thereafter proceeded to apply the doctrine of proportionality. The aforesaid approach is obviously incorrect. It is telltale that the respondent had remained absent for a considerable length of time. He had exhibited adamantine attitude in not responding to the communications from the employer while he was unauthorisedly absent. As it appears, he has chosen his way, possibly nurturing the idea that he can remain absent for any length of time, apply for grant of leave at any time and also knock at the doors of the court at his own will. Learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that he had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual absenteeism” is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate. 31. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Government of India and Another vs. George Philip: “In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months’ time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organization. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same.” 32. We respectfully reiterate the said feeling and re-state with the hope that employees in any organization should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organization. When we say this, we may not be understood to have stated that the employers should be harsh to impose grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable atmosphere in an organization develops the work culture and the employer and the employees are expected to remember the same as a precious value for systemic development. 33. Judged on the anvil of the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is that the interference by the High Court with the punishment is totally unwarranted and unsustainable, and further the High Court was wholly unjustified in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of four years. 33. Judged on the anvil of the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is that the interference by the High Court with the punishment is totally unwarranted and unsustainable, and further the High Court was wholly unjustified in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of four years. The result of aforesaid analysis would entail overturning the judgments and orders passed by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and, accordingly, we so do.” 5.5 Keeping in mind the observations made by the Apex Court, as noted herein above, if, the facts of the case on hand are examined, the decision of this Court in Harshaben B. Patel (Supra), relied on by the learned Advocate, Mr. Japee, shall not apply in this case and the same will not help the appellant in any manner. 5.6 In above view of the matter, we find that the appellate authority as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court committed no error, much less any error of law, in confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 6. In the result, this appeal fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, Dated: 24.01.2022, in Special Civil Application No. 15418 of 2019 is hereby confirmed.