ORDER : MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J. The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this writ petition are as under: While the 1 st petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in PUSHE Power house, Masinagudi, Kundah Generation Circle, TNEB, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo dated 15.06.2004 containing three charges. Charge No.1: 2. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted an Enquiry Officer and all the charges held to have been proved by the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, 2 nd respondent furnished the copy of the report of a Enquiry Officer to the 1 st petitioner and after receipt of further representation from the 1 st petitioner, the 2 nd respondent afforded opportunities on number of occasions to the 1 st petitioner to appear in person and make a submission. However, the 1 st petitioner failed to avail such opportunities. In view of the same, the 2 nd respondent passed an order dated 24.11.2008 removing the 1 st petitioner from service, after accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the 1 st petitioner filed an appeal before the 1 st respondent but the said appeal was rejected by the 1 st respondent through memo No.1127/103/M.18/M.185/2009-I, dated 24.07.2010. It is aggrieved by the said order of removal dated 24.11.2008, as confirmed by memo dated 24.07.2010, the present writ petition has been filed by the 1 st petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the 1 st petitioner died and hence, the petitioners 2 to 5 herein were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased/1 st petitioner. 4. As seen from the charges, which are extracted herein above, the charges 1 & 2 relate to absenteeism from service without submitting proper leave application and the third charge is about habitual absentisim of the 1 st petitioner resulting in imposition of punishment on the 1 st petitioner on number of occasions. As already noted above, all the charges were held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and the same was accepted by the 2 nd respondent/Disciplinary Authority. It is not in dispute that the 1 st petitioner failed to report to duty after expiry of the leave for which he had submitted a proper application i.e., for the period of commencing from 16.02.2004 to 24.02.2004. It is not in dispute that the 1 st petitioner failed to report to duty after expiry of the leave for which he had submitted a proper application i.e., for the period of commencing from 16.02.2004 to 24.02.2004. Though the petitioner claimed to have submitted a subsequent application seeking extension of earned leave, admittedly the said application was not submitted in proper form and the 1 st petitioner had in fact submitted a consolidate application for sanction of leave and offered to rejoin the service only on 11.08.2004. Thus, it is evident that the 1 st petitioner, who availed leave from 16.02.2004 to 24.02.2004 has reported duty only on 11.08.2004 i.e., almost after lapse of six months. The 1 st petitioner remained absent from the services without proper sanction of leave for a period of six months. The 1 st petitioner who is holding the post of Officer in the respondent/Board remained absent without proper sanction of leave for six months. The period of absence of the 1 st petitioner from 25.02.2004 to 10.08.2004 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered punishment on earlier occasions for the same misconduct of unauthorized absence. Further, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is also noticed that the petitioner was afforded number of opportunities to make his submissions in person before the 2 nd respondent by issuing memos dated 15.02.2007, 18.12.2007 and 25.02.2008. Inspite of affording such opportunities, the petitioner failed to avail such opportunities and appears to have made a claim for consideration of his name for promotion instead of explaining the reasons for his absence. 5. From the perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the 1 st petitioner is in the habit of availing unauthorized leave and remain absent from his legitimate duty not only in the present occasion but on various previous occasions as well. Basing upon the charges, which stood proved against the petitioner, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the 1 st petitioner. 6. This Court on going through the entire material on record, is convinced that the proceedure that is followed by the respondents in passing the impugned order does not require any interference. 7. Basing upon the charges, which stood proved against the petitioner, punishment of removal from service was imposed on the 1 st petitioner. 6. This Court on going through the entire material on record, is convinced that the proceedure that is followed by the respondents in passing the impugned order does not require any interference. 7. However, the only question in the considered view of this Court, that would fall for consideration of this Court, is about the proportionality of the punishment of removal from services. 8. Admittedly, the charge against the 1 st petitioner is being unauthorisedly absent from his legitimate duties. The 1 st petitioner had already put in more than 25 years of service by the date of impuged order of removal from service. In those circumstances, the 2 nd respondent, having thought that the continuation of the 1 st petitioner in service was not in the interest of the respondent/Board, and accordingly, passed order removing the 1 st petitioner from service. But considering the fact that the petitioner has already completed 25 years of service by then, and the alleged misconduct on the part of the 1 st petitioner is only unauthorized absence from his legitimate duty, the 2 nd respondent, in all probabilities ought have imposed the punishment of compusory retirement from service instead of removal from service. By virtue of removal from service, the entire service rendered by the petitioner would stand nullified and deprived from all the terminal benefits as well. It is not a case of misconduct of moral turpitude, misappropriation of funds etc. The imposition of punishment of removal from service in the considered view of this Court is shockingly disproportionate, to the gravity of charges proved against the 1 st petitioner. Further, as already noted above, the 1 st petitioner has also passed away during the pendency of the present writ petition and the legal representatives were brought on record. In the absence of any finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority that the absence of the 1 st petitioner from the duty is willful, the imposition of the punishment of removal from service is shockingly dispropotionate and the same need to be interfered with by duly modifying the same. 9. In the absence of any finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority that the absence of the 1 st petitioner from the duty is willful, the imposition of the punishment of removal from service is shockingly dispropotionate and the same need to be interfered with by duly modifying the same. 9. In the light of above circumstances, the impugned order imposing the punishment of removal from service on the 1 st petitioner is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed to the extent of imposing the punishment of removal from service while upholding the other conclusion arrived at by the respondents. The punishment of removal from service shall stand substituted with the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 24.11.2008, i.e., the date on which the impugned removal order came to be passed. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate consequential orders and release all the terminal benefits that would be payable to the 1 st petitioner in favour of the petitioners 2 and 5 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to cost.