ORDER : Sudesh Bansal, J. 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed by petitioner wayback on 28.05.2014, impugning the order dated 06.10.2007 passed by the Director General, Prisons Rajasthan, Jaipur, dismissing the petitioner from service, following the enquiry report pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004, to remain absent from duty as Prahari in jail from 31.07.2003 to 25.02.2004, without giving intimation and submitting any leave application. 2. It has been noticed by this Court that though the writ petition has been filed after a delay of near about 7 years, which is not well explained, however, considering the nature of punishment of removal from services, this Court is deciding the writ petition on merits as well. 3. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner challenged the order of removal dated 06.10.2007, by way of filing an appeal under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 and his appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2008, but the order dated 26.05.2008 has not been challenged in the instant writ petition. A copy of order dated 26.05.2008, shown by the counsel for petitioner, is taken on record on her oral request. 4. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 5. It is a case where apart from charges of absenteeism from duty for a period from 31.07.2003 to 25.02.2004, under the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004, as per the service record of petitioner, he was found to be a habitual absentee. Petitioner remained absent from duty for the following periods:- (i) 19.08.1999 to 29.09.1999; (ii) 20.04.2000 to 12.05.2000; (iii) 31.07.2003 to 25.02.2004; (For which the present charge-sheet was issued) (iv) 28.04.2004 to 23.07.2004; and (v) 05.09.2005 to 27.03.2006 6. It is also undisputed that for the previous periods of absenteeism, petitioner was also served with other charge-sheets and he was punished with penalties of censure as also stoppage of three annual grade increment and ultimately, pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004, he has been punished with the penalty of removal from service. 7. Counsel for petitioner made a persuasive attempt to urge that in-fact petitioner was suffering from mental illness of Schizophrenia and was undergoing medical treatment by the Psychiatrist, hence for such reason, he could not report on his duty and his absenteeism may not be treated as deliberate and willful. 7. Counsel for petitioner made a persuasive attempt to urge that in-fact petitioner was suffering from mental illness of Schizophrenia and was undergoing medical treatment by the Psychiatrist, hence for such reason, he could not report on his duty and his absenteeism may not be treated as deliberate and willful. In support thereof, few of the medical prescriptions of the Psychiatrist, have been placed on record. 8. Having considered the contentions of counsel for petitioner and the fact findings recorded in the impugned order, which are based on the service record of petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend the charges leveled against him in the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004. Even, at one point of time, petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer i.e. on 03.01.2005, but he neither chose to file reply to the charge-sheet, nor adduced any evidence. Petitioner did not produce any of the medical prescriptions before the Enquiry Officer, as have been placed before this Court, to explain reasons of his absenteeism from service. That apart, indisputably, for the previous period of absenteeism, petitioner has been saddled with penalties of censure and stoppage of three annual grade increment and petitioner has been guilty of absenteeism time and again, without sanction of leave. 9. The Disciplinary Authority, in the impugned order dated 06.10.2007, has clearly observed that the services of petitioner as Prahari in jail, require discipline and his repeatedly absent from the duty, that too without giving prior intimation or submitting any leave application, is gross negligence on the part of petitioner, which warrants major punishment of dismissal from service. 10. As far as filing of appeal against the punishment order dated 06.10.2007 is concerned, the order of dismissal of appeal has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. 11. This Court, taking into consideration the fact findings and reasonings assigned by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order, finds that the Disciplinary Authority has assigned justified reasons for holding guilt of petitioner for willful absenteeism and saddling him with penalty of dismissal that too after having satisfied with the entire service record of petitioner, apart from proving the charges pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 26.06.2004. In such peculiar circumstances, the order of dismissal from service, may not be held to be disproportionate to the nature of charges. 12. In such peculiar circumstances, the order of dismissal from service, may not be held to be disproportionate to the nature of charges. 12. As far as medical prescriptions of petitioner are concerned, same could have been produced by the petitioner during course of enquiry, for which sufficient opportunity was afforded to him. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to collect evidence afresh, nor can appreciate evidence de novo. 13. The legal proposition of law in respect of interference with findings of the Disciplinary Authority and punishment order passed after conducting disciplinary enquiry, within exercise of powers of judicial review by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are well settled and after following the proposition of law as set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in celebrated judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh [ (1977) 2 SCC 491 ] , the Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umesh [ (2022) 6 SCC 563 ] in Para No.22, has held as under:- “22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffers from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.” 14. Further, the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1064] in Para 42 has held as under: "It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court. " 15. Having considered the case of petitioner on the touchstone of judgments delivered by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, it is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice, nor it is a case of punishment of petitioner disproportionate to the nature of charges. Re-evaluation of evidence afresh by the High Court, to arrive at different conclusion, than recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is not permissible in law, more particularly while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. As a final result, the instant writ petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 17. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.