JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. Petitioner, who has been removed from the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited on the ground of unauthorised absence, seeks to declare that the removal of the petitioner from the services of the KSEBL is illegal. 2. The petitioner states that while working as Executive Engineer at Pallivasal, he was subjected to mental harassment and was unable to discharge his duties. By G.O. dated 12.12.2012, he was deputed to National Games, Secretariat on deputation for one year. The petitioner requested for relieving him for joining the National Games, Secretariat as per letter dated 04.01.2013. But, the Deputy Chief Engineer directed the petitioner not to avail deputation. The petitioner was pressurised to continue in KSEBL. The deputation order was cancelled as per Ext.P4 order dated 21.03.2013. 3. The petitioner filed an application for Half Pay Leave for seven days with effect from 03.04.2013 on personal grounds. The leave was sanctioned. The petitioner's application for extension of Half Pay Leave for a further period of 21 days, up to 20.04.2013 was also sanctioned. The petitioner further sought extension of Half Pay Leave upto 14.06.2013 and for Leave Without Allowance for a further period of one year from 15.06.2013 on personal grounds. 4. The petitioner was ready to rejoin even before the expiry of the leave. But, the petitioner was denied the chance to rejoin duty. On the other hand, the 4 th respondent was given illegal promotion to the post held by the petitioner. A memo of charge dated 30.09.2013 was issued to the petitioner alleging unauthorised absence with effect from 01.05.2013, as per Ext.P9. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 written statement dated 16.11.2013. The Enquiry Officer submitted Ext.P12 enquiry report dated 07.03.2015 holding that the petitioner was suffering from severe mental strain and depression. A show-cause notice was issued after 35 months from the date of submission of enquiry report. 5. The disciplinary authority rejected the explanations offered by the petitioner and imposed penalty of removal from service as per Ext.P17 order dated 04.04.2018. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P19. The review petition of the petitioner was also dismissed as per Ext.P21. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.7182/2020 challenging the order of removal. 6. 5. The disciplinary authority rejected the explanations offered by the petitioner and imposed penalty of removal from service as per Ext.P17 order dated 04.04.2018. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P19. The review petition of the petitioner was also dismissed as per Ext.P21. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.7182/2020 challenging the order of removal. 6. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court confirming the findings of the Enquiry Officer and converting the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement, as per Ext.P22 judgment. The respondents filed W.A. No.768/2022. The Division Bench set aside Ext.P22 judgment and Ext.P21 order in review petition and directed the Board of the KSEBL to reconsider the review petition submitted by the petitioner. The Division Bench also directed to consider the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 7. The Board, however, rejected the review petition as per Ext.P27 order. The petitioner states that he was not heard before passing Ext.P27 and the Board did not consider proportionality of the punishment. The petitioner states that the major punishment of removal was imposed on him on the basis of an endorsement in the postal cover to the effect that 'Addressee left India'. The Postman was not examined in the enquiry. The postal cover was not made available to the petitioner during the enquiry. 8. The petitioner states that there was no earlier history of misconduct or dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner could not resume duty since a substitute was appointed in his place and his name was removed from the Attendance Book with effect from 01.08.2013. The entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by irregularities, asserted the petitioner. 9. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and others [ (2004) 4 SCC 560 ] and contended that absence for more than two months on medical grounds with sanction of leave cannot be regarded as a grave misconduct or continued misconduct rendering one unfit to continue in service and dismissal on that ground is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. 10. 10. The counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another [ (2012) 3 SCC 178 ] and argued that if absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful and employee guilty of misconduct. 11. Respondents 1 to 3 resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The respondents stated that the petitioner took leave for 28 days from 03.04.2013 to 30.04.2013 and after the leave period, sought further extensions of leave. The petitioner was informed to resume duty as per Ext.P13 letter dated 08.05.2013 and the letter was returned with remark “Addressee left India”. The petitioner left India for employment abroad. Therefore, the petitioner was proceeded against. 12. The charges framed against the petitioner were grave in nature and were proved in the departmental enquiry. Hence, a major punishment of removal was proposed. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, the Board examined the contentions made by the petitioner. The Board found that the contentions are not true. On 19.06.2024, the Board resolved not to modify or alter the order of punishment. 13. The respondents stated that the alleged mental strain of the petitioner was not discussed with any of his superior officers during the relevant time. The recommendations of the Enquiry Officer on the punishment to be imposed on a delinquent officer, have no force. The petitioner was removed from service as he was unauthorisedly absent from duty with effect from 01.05.2013 without any sanctioned leave. The unauthorised absence was willful and deliberate. Therefore, the punishment of removal imposed on the petitioner is commensurate with the misconduct. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 15. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows: (1) Absented from duty, unauthorisedly, with effect from 01.05.2013. (2) Neither attended the calls made from the Head Quarters, on his available phone contact, nor contacted the authorities concerned for reporting his inability to return to duty and the reasons thereof. (3) Left India without obtaining permission from the Board. (4) Committed grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. 16. The Enquiry Officer found the four charges as proved. (2) Neither attended the calls made from the Head Quarters, on his available phone contact, nor contacted the authorities concerned for reporting his inability to return to duty and the reasons thereof. (3) Left India without obtaining permission from the Board. (4) Committed grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. 16. The Enquiry Officer found the four charges as proved. However, the Enquiry Officer concluded thus: “Considering the fact that the delinquent officer was suffering from mental depression, mental strain and a confused state of mind and that he had expressed his sincere apologies regarding the core issue viz. leaving the country without Board sanction and that there is no further history of misconduct or dereliction of duty against the delinquent officer, it is recommended that the Board may take a lenient view against the action to be taken against the delinquent officer.” 17. The 2 nd respondent, however, imposed the punishment of removal from service with effect from 01.05.2013 on the petitioner, as per Ext.P17. The petitioner's appeal petition was rejected as per Ext.P19. His petition for review was also rejected as per Ext.P21. 18. In W.P.(C) No.7182/2020 filed by the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of this Court found that the punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the next lower punishment of compulsory retirement from service will be commensurate with the alleged misconduct. The writ petition was allowed partly affirming the imposition of penalty and converting the punishment as compulsory retirement. 19. The petitioner as well as the respondents filed writ appeals against Ext.P22 judgment. In the writ appeals, the Division Bench held that apart from a recommendation made by the enquiring authority, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to hold that the penalty imposed was shockingly disproportionate. The Division Bench therefore set aside Ext.P22 judgment as also Ext.P11 order (Ext.P21 in this writ petition) and disposed of the writ appeal directing the Board of KSEBL to pass fresh orders taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner on facts and in law. The petitioner was permitted to file a detailed argument note. 20. The Board, however, resolved not to modify or alter the punishment of removal. The Board held that willful absence from duty is a grave misconduct. The punishment was imposed following due procedure. The petitioner was permitted to file a detailed argument note. 20. The Board, however, resolved not to modify or alter the punishment of removal. The Board held that willful absence from duty is a grave misconduct. The punishment was imposed following due procedure. The contention of the petitioner regarding mental strain and untoward events cannot be considered as the petitioner had not discussed such a matter with any superior officer. The petitioner's application for extension of leave was rejected and the matter was communicated to the petitioner with a direction to rejoin duty. The petitioner did not turn up. 21. From Ext.P27, I find that the Board has considered the proportionality of the punishment. The petitioner was required to rejoin duty when he was unauthorisedly absent. Non-sanctioning of the leave was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has not, at any point of time, expressed his willingness to resume duty. The contention of the petitioner that he did not rejoin duty as a substitute was appointed in his post cannot be accepted. The petitioner was working as Executive Engineer and not in any inferior post. Even though the post occupied by him was not vacant, the petitioner could have approached superior authorities. That was not done. As unauthorised absence under such circumstances is a grave offence, it cannot be said that the punishment of removal awarded is shockingly disproportionate. 22. As rightly held by the Division Bench of this Court, the role of the Enquiry Officer is to enquire into the charges to decide whether the charges are proved or not. Any recommendation of an Enquiry Officer regarding the quantum of punishment has no force and such recommendations will be misconceived. The petitioner might have suffered mental strain for some period. But, that is not a reason for the petitioner not to take any steps to resume duty for a considerably long time, when his leave applications were not allowed. 23. The petitioner has a case that there is discrimination as regards the quantum of punishment. The argument is that in similar circumstances and for a similar offence, another employee named Bushara V. was let off by dropping further disciplinary proceedings. The respondents would point out that in the case of the said Smt.Bushara V., LWA was granted to her and the LWA was extended also for four years. The argument is that in similar circumstances and for a similar offence, another employee named Bushara V. was let off by dropping further disciplinary proceedings. The respondents would point out that in the case of the said Smt.Bushara V., LWA was granted to her and the LWA was extended also for four years. The respondents found that the extension of LWA was sought on genuine grounds. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot make a comparison with the case of Bushara V. For all the afore reasons, I find that Ext.P17 order cannot be interfered with on all or any of the grounds urged by the petitioner. The writ petition is hence dismissed.