ORDER : (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings No.DOP/07/05678/M/03, dated 16.11.2010 and the consequential proceedings No.DMRL/LC/WP/5880/ Gopalakrishna, dated 21.04.2011 and proceedings No.DOP/07/ 05678/M/03, dated 30.09.2011, issued by the respondents and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Tribunal, dated 27.10.2015 in O.A.No.569 of 2012. 2. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondents. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that petitioner was appointed as Scientist-B in the respondent No.4-organization in the year 1982 and was promoted as Scientist-D in the year 1993, that in the year 1998, petitioner made an application to the 4th respondent seeking permission to apply for Post Doctoral Fellowship in the United States of America (USA), that 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 06.04.1998 granted permission to the petitioner to apply for the said fellowship; that based on the said permission, petitioner applied to the Cleveland State University, USA for said Fellowship and the said University offered him the post doctoral research vide letter dated 22.04.1998; that petitioner requested the 4th respondent on 04.05.1998 for grant of Extraordinary Leave (EOL) and also for No Objection Certificate (NOC) to pursue his assignment in USA and the said request was forwarded to the 2nd respondent belatedly on 22.05.1998; that as the petitioner had to report in USA by 01.06.1998 and as there was delay on the part of the respondents in giving necessary permission, he left India on 28.05.1998. 4. It is contended that 3rd respondent issued a charge memo dated 28.04.1999 to the petitioner under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the alleged misconduct of absenting himself from duty w.e.f. 01.07.1998 without prior sanction of leave and without obtaining any NOC from the competent authority for leaving for USA, that petitioner submitted his resignation, however, the same was rejected by the respondents through proceedings dated 22.09.1999. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo in November, 1999, that not satisfied with the said explanation, respondents proceeded with the inquiry, which was conducted ex parte and a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 09.04.2001, wherein the Inquiry Officer suggested the disciplinary authority to pardon the charged officer, provided the charged officer admits, regrets and apologies in writing for the impetuous and ignorant acts committed by him and the said report was forwarded to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 04.07.2001 and sought for his written statement. Petitioner submitted his explanation vide letter dated 17.09.2001, in which he had stated that he was ready and willing to convey his regrets and offered unconditional apology and requested for grant of EOL and NOC. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dated 26.11.2001 imposed penalty of removal from service. 5. Aggrieved by the removal proceedings dated 26.11.2001, petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (for short, Tribunal) by filing O.A.No.1185 of 2003 and the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.04.2007, was pleased to allow the O.A.No.1185 of 2003 and set aside the order dated 26.11.2001. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2007, the respondents approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5880 of 2008 and this Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition vide order dated 23.03.2010 and directed the Disciplinary Authority to consider and dispose of the case of the petitioner by imposing minor punishment other than the removal within a period of two months. The Disciplinary Authority was also directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to the period in which petitioner remained absent. 6. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 16.11.2010 imposing punishment of withholding of promotion for five years, however, no order was passed with regard to the period in which petitioner remained absent. Therefore, petitioner filed C.C.No.2050 of 2011 before this Court for not complying the portion of the order of this Court dated 23.03.2010 in W.P.No.5880 of 2008. Meanwhile, vide proceedings dated 21.04.2011, petitioner was informed that partially modified order dated 16.11.2010 issued on the directions of this Court shall have the same effect as that of the original major punishment order dated 26.11.2001, except the imposition of lesser penalty. Later, pursuant to the directions of this Court vide proceedings dated 30.09.2011, the period of absence of the petitioner was treated as dies-non. 7. Later, pursuant to the directions of this Court vide proceedings dated 30.09.2011, the period of absence of the petitioner was treated as dies-non. 7. Aggrieved by the orders dated 16.11.2010, 21.04.2011 and 30.09.2011, petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.569 of 2012 and the Tribunal, vide order dated 27.10.2015, was pleased to dismiss the said O.A. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Tribunal completely misdirected itself and dismissed the O.A.No.569 of 2012 on 27.10.2015, that Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, inasmuch as it traversed into the facts and issues which were already considered and decided by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1185 of 2003 dated 27.04.2007 and this Court in W.P.No.5880 of 2008 dated 23.03.2010. It has been contended that there are several lapses on the part of the respondent authorities in not acting fairly and reasonably with regard to the application made by the petitioner for grant of EOL and NOC, that earlier this Court held that the punishment is unconscionable and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and accordingly, remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authorities to pass orders by imposing lesser punishment. However, these findings of this Court were not considered by the Tribunal and passed impugned judgment. 9. It has been further contended that Tribunal grossly erred in entering into the issues already settled in the earlier round of litigation and committed jurisdictional error in giving finding that the petitioner left for USA for higher studies without obtaining NOC and sanctioning of EOL and suppressed the facts. The Tribunal also failed to appreciate that though this Court earlier held that there is a clear procedural irregularity and there is arbitrariness on the part of respondents when the matter was remitted back, instead of imposing a minor punishment, punishment of stoppage of promotion for five years was imposed and erroneously treated that the whole period as dies-non and finally, he prayed to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that petitioner had abruptly left India and proceeded to USA on 28.05.1998 in his own interest without prior sanction of leave and also without obtaining NOC from the competent authority in the guise of acquiring Post Doctoral Fellowship and also suppressed the facts of his employment in Government of India Service and obtained VISA; that since 28.05.1998, the petitioner remained in USA and had never showed any interest or willingness to rejoin duty for last 17 years, that petitioner was issued charge memo on 28.04.1999 for his misconduct under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965, enquiry was conducted and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority imposed major penalty of removal from service on the petitioner vide order dated 26.11.2001. It is further contended that when the petitioner was imposed the minor penalty of withholding of promotion for five years as per the orders of the this Court vide dated 16.11.2010, the petitioner was requested to report for duty at DMRL, Hyderabad and letter dated 21.04.2011 was also addressed to the petitioner directing him to report for duty at DMRL, Hyderabad, but he did not bother to honour the request and rejoin duty. 11. It is further contended that petitioner deserved to be imposed major penalty of removal from service for his grave misconduct of abruptly leaving India for USA and for staying there for more than 17 years till he completed the age of retirement on superannuation and also holding two employments concurrently, one in India and another in USA in contravention of Rule 15 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 12. Learned counsel for respondents had further contended that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the material available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly dismissed the O.A.No.569 of 2012 and finally prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 13. Admittedly, petitioner was an employee in 4th respondent-organization and submitted application dated 04.05.1998 for grant of EOL for a period of ten months w.e.f. 01.06.1998 and also for NOC to visit USA in the guise of acquiring Post Doctoral Fellowship. On the same day, he also submitted a certificate stating that he will rejoin duties at DMRL, Hyderabad on expiry of leave and will not stay in USA. 14. On the same day, he also submitted a certificate stating that he will rejoin duties at DMRL, Hyderabad on expiry of leave and will not stay in USA. 14. Perusal of the record would show that on 29.05.1998, the petitioner applied for grant of Earned Leave for one month from 01.06.1998 to 30.06.1998 on personal grounds and the said leave was granted by the Group Coordinators. However, on examination of the case of the petitioner, on 28.05.1998 he left India and proceeded to USA without prior sanction of EOL and also without obtaining NOC from the competent authority and he did return to India and join the duty on expiry of alleged leave applied by the petitioner. Later, a charge memo dated 28.04.1999 was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the alleged misconduct of absenting himself from duty w.e.f. 01.07.1998 onwards without prior sanction of leave and also for leaving USA without obtaining any NOC from the competent authority. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo and not satisfied with the explanation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 09.04.2001 recommending that petitioner may be pardoned provided petitioner admits, regrets and apologies in writing for the impetuous and ignorant acts committed by him. Basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service vide proceedings dated 26.11.2001. 15. On perusal of record, it is evident that proceedings have been pending before the Tribunal and this Court for all these years and lastly, on the directions of this Court, the punishment of removal from service is modified to that of withholding promotions for five years and the period of unauthorized absence was treated as dies-non. Challenging the said punishment, petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.569 of 2012 and the Tribunal, on elaborate consideration of the material placed on record, vide order dated 27.10.2015 dismissed the O.A.No.569 of 2012. 16. It is settled principle of law that the writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot sit as an appellate forum and re-appreciate the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry and come to a different conclusion from the conclusion arrived at in the domestic enquiry. 16. It is settled principle of law that the writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot sit as an appellate forum and re-appreciate the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry and come to a different conclusion from the conclusion arrived at in the domestic enquiry. The scope of judicial review against departmental proceedings is very narrow and confined to whether procedural formalities are complied; whether delinquent employee was given reasonable opportunity to establish his defence; whether there is appreciation of material on record before holding the employee guilty or findings are arrived based on surmises and conjunctures; whether disciplinary authority considered the material on record and arrived at independent conclusion; whether the concerned authority is having bias and prejudice against the employee and acted against the interest of the employee without observing due process and with pre-determined notion of guilt. 17. In disciplinary proceedings against employee proof of allegation can be on principle of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ unlike in criminal proceedings. A master can severe relationship with his servant on proving misconduct. If master is a public sector undertaking, such relationship is regulated by set of regulations. Master is required to follow procedure envisaged in regulations before severing the relationship. The substantive requirement of the regulations is whenever misconduct is alleged, employee must be told of the allegation, supply material based on which such allegation is made, give an opportunity to rebut the allegations and on due consideration and by a reasoned order shall take a decision. In a given facts of the case, charge sheet need not be proved by leading oral evidence, but can be established based on documents on record. 18. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner had left India and proceeded to USA to prosecute his further studies, and remained in USA for about more than 17 years, without obtaining NOC from the competent authority and without prior sanction of EOL, which amounts to grave misconduct and dereliction of duties and the respondent-authority have passed the impugned orders by duly taking into consideration the absence, conduct of the petitioner in staying back in USA for about 17 years without obtaining prior permission, sanction from the competent authority and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O.A.No.569 of 2012 filed by the petitioner. 19. 19. In considered opinion of this Court, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and the petitioner failed to make out any case warranting this Court to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.