JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 07.08.2001 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Rajasthan, Jaipur cum Disciplinary Authority, whereby pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, penalty of removal from service has been enforced against the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on 08.11.1996 on the post of Sub-Inspector and on 23.11.1996, he reported for training at Rajasthan Police Academy. It is stated that the petitioner submitted applications for granting leave on the ground that his mother was not well. On account of illness of mother, the petitioner could not join the duties, consequently one charge-sheet under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 dated 09.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner leveling charges of willful and unauthorized absence for the period commencing from 29.11.1996 to 14.01.1998. 3. Petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet mentioning therein that on account of illness of his mother and under constraining circumstances where he had to attend his mother during her serious illness, he could not join his duties. He submitted that his absence under the circumstances ought not to have been treated as willful and deliberate, therefore, he prayed for dropping the charge-sheet and exonerating the petitioner. Thereafter, feeling dissatisfied with the reply to the charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 12.10.1999 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. It is submitted that the intimation with regard to initiation of enquiry was not given to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner could not participate in the enquiry, nor could he cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management/employer, nor was he granted any opportunity to place defence evidence on record. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry in ex-parte manner and on receiving copy of enquiry report, an application was submitted by the petitioner for furnishing him copies of certain valid documents, which were not supplied to the petitioner. As such, in utter violation of provisions of Rule 16 of Rules of 1958, in quite arbitrary and illegal manner disciplinary authority passed the order dated 07.08.2001, whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. As such, in utter violation of provisions of Rule 16 of Rules of 1958, in quite arbitrary and illegal manner disciplinary authority passed the order dated 07.08.2001, whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, in order to enforce discipline, the disciplinary authority has got the right to initiate the enquiry as well as to impose penalty upon the delinquent employee, yet while doing so the disciplinary authority is under the obligation to follow the procedure contemplated under the Rules of 1958. In the instant case, where even defence assistant was not provided to the petitioner and he was also not given opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings, ignoring the defence put forward by the petitioner in his reply to the charge-sheet, harshest penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. It is also submitted that one another officer Shri R. S. Charan was also charge-sheeted with the similar allegation of willful absence, however, lesser penalty of withholding two grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon R.S. Charan, whereas the petitioner has been saddled with grave penalty of removal from service, which is apparent and manifest discrimination on the part of disciplinary authority, therefore, the order of removal is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 5. In addition to above, it has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 was biased with the petitioner and quite maliciously, at his instance and instructions, the petitioner has been made scapegoat and in utter violation of principles of natural justice as well as by making non compliance of procedure encapsulated in the Rules of 1958, penalty of removal from service has been imposed. 6. Per contra, the writ petition was opposed by respondent-Department and impugned order has been defended by learned Deputy Government Counsel. He submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 08.11.1996 and first time, he reported for training in Rajasthan Police Academy on 23.11.1996 and only after 6 days from the date of his joining, he absented from duties for around 400 days without getting the leave sanctioned and without placing any justified reasons on record. He submits that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 08.11.1996 and first time, he reported for training in Rajasthan Police Academy on 23.11.1996 and only after 6 days from the date of his joining, he absented from duties for around 400 days without getting the leave sanctioned and without placing any justified reasons on record. Learned Deputy Government Counsel submits that the respondent-Police Department is a discipline force, where degree of discipline is much higher than any other services of the State Government. Such conduct of the petitioner where during his probation period and only after 6 days from joining, he virtually disappeared from his duties, treating it to be grave misconduct charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was granted opportunity to submit reply to the charge-sheet. Although, reply of the charge-sheet was filed by the petitioner, yet despite intimation, he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. On account of his continuous absence during enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was left with no other option except to conduct enquiry in his absence. Even after concluding the enquiry, the disciplinary authority sent him copy of enquiry report along with notice affording him opportunity to make a representation against the finding of enquiry report. Even then the petitioner did not submit any representation against the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order has meticulously dealt with the contents of reply to the charge-sheet and it has also been recorded that apart from long absence of around 400 days as specified in the charge-sheet dated 09.08.1999, the petitioner also remained willfully absent during the period even subsequent to the period mentioned in the charge-sheet for which he has been awarded multiple penalties after conducting enquiry. Under these circumstances, after examining the entire record, nature of the charges, reply to the charge-sheet and enquiry report where enquiry has been conducted strictly in terms of Rules of 1958, order of removal from service dated 07.08.2001 has been passed, in which there is no infirmity. 7. Learned Deputy Government Counsel further submits that although, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of filing the appeal under Rule 23 of Rules of 1958 but without there being any justified reasons, petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal and has filed the instant writ petition directly, therefore, even otherwise the petition is not maintainable. 8. 7. Learned Deputy Government Counsel further submits that although, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of filing the appeal under Rule 23 of Rules of 1958 but without there being any justified reasons, petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal and has filed the instant writ petition directly, therefore, even otherwise the petition is not maintainable. 8. Learned Deputy Government Counsel further submits that scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of disciplinary proceeding is extremely limited and only in the cases, where violation of any statutory rule or procedure is apparent and manifest; or in such cases, where the penalty imposed upon the delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt, which in case touches the conscience of the Court, any interference can be made. In the instant case, no such ground has been established by the petitioner in his writ petition, therefore, he prayed for dismissing the writ petition. 9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Managobinda Samantaray reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 284 and State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Ex. C. Satpal Singh reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1283 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is an admitted fact on the basis of record that only after a few days from the date of appointment the petitioner absented from the duties that too for a period around 400 days. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to justify such absence. In reply to the charge-sheet, although it has been mentioned that the petitioner could not attend his duties on account of illness of his mother, yet on examination of the contents of reply as well as the documents enclosed therewith, it was found by the disciplinary authority that the charges of absence are mainly related to the year 1996-1997, whereas the documents with regard to illness of petitioner’s mother were of the subsequent period i.e. from 1998-1999. Thus, such reason assigned by the petitioner was incorrect and contrary to record, therefore was not sufficient to justify such a long delay. 12. That apart despite granting opportunity during enquiry, the petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings and failed to cooperate during enquiry. Thus, such reason assigned by the petitioner was incorrect and contrary to record, therefore was not sufficient to justify such a long delay. 12. That apart despite granting opportunity during enquiry, the petitioner did not join the enquiry proceedings and failed to cooperate during enquiry. Although, oral submission was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no intimation with regard to initiation of enquiry was given to the petitioner, however, learned counsel utterly failed to show any pleading to this effect in the entire writ petition. 13. After conclusion of enquiry, admittedly copy of same was also served upon the petitioner, however, he didn’t submit any representation against the enquiry report in order to show any violation of law or defect in the enquiry. 14. Disciplinary Authority under these circumstances has passed one reasoned order after taking into consideration the justification assigned by the petitioner in his reply to the charge- sheet as well as the other material which was considered by the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry proceedings, where the Enquiry Officer has held that the petitioner was guilty of willful and unauthorized absence for a period of 382 days. While considering the point of quantum of penalty also the disciplinary authority has considered the period of service rendered by the petitioner prior to the impugned charge-sheet as well as the fact that there were other multiple penalties also in the service record of the petitioner for the similar charges of willful absence. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the disciplinary authority was either non speaking or without application of mind. Entire facts have been analyzed regarding the charges levelled against the petitioner and even the question of quantum of punishment has been considered and then treating the petitioner to be habitual absentee, that too in a disciplined force like police services, no mistake has been committed by the disciplinary authority in passing order of removal from service. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also utterly failed to justify the petitioner’s action of by-passing the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Rules of 1958 and for filing writ petition directly. Such practice cannot be appreciated and without there being any justified reason, a person cannot be allowed to directly approach the writ court for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. Such practice cannot be appreciated and without there being any justified reason, a person cannot be allowed to directly approach the writ court for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In addition to above, it is also settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate authority and only in the cases, where there is manifest and apparent illegality, irrationality or perversity, interference can be made in the penalty order. However, on thorough examination of record of the instant writ petition, no such ground is made out. 17. In the case of Ex. C. Satpal Singh (Supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the penalty imposed upon the employee for committing gross indiscipline, has held that the past conduct of an employee can also be a basis for imposing punishment and the department is also under obligation to see the other record while inflicting the punishment. 18. In the case of Managobinda Samantaray (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of disciplinary penalty imposed upon a personnel of central police force and has held that discipline is the essence of organization and structure of police force. No indulgence or latitude can be granted to the members of such forces and even the punishment of dismissal imposed was found to be proportionate to the guilt of the delinquent. It was also held that while exercising the powers of judicial review the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume role of an appellate authority and writ jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law and procedural error leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. 19. As regards contention of the petitioner that one another officer of respondent-department Shri R. S. Charan was also charge-sheeted with the allegations of willful absence, yet lesser penalty was given to him, whereas the petitioner was saddled with penalty of removal from service. In this regard, on examination of record, this Court finds that nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner with regard to the details of Shri R. S. Charan so as to claim parity. In disciplinary proceedings, each and every case is decided on the basis of its own merit. In this regard, on examination of record, this Court finds that nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner with regard to the details of Shri R. S. Charan so as to claim parity. In disciplinary proceedings, each and every case is decided on the basis of its own merit. In the instant case, where the petitioner absented himself for around 400 days only after 6 days of his joining, after appointment, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner with any other person. 20. In the light of above discussion, analysis of facts and record as well as guidelines given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, no case for interference is made out in the instant writ petition and same is dismissed being devoid of any merit and substance.