THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 31075 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to proceedings No.960411/VC/96 dated 13.8.1998 of the respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. It appears, the petitioner joined in the respondent-Bank, in the year 1976, as Staff Assistant and worked in various branches of Hyderabad. He was issued with several show-cause notices on the ground that he remained absent from attending duty unauthorisedly and through proceedings dated 4.11.1996, 6.12.1996, punishment of one increment and three increments respectively, was inflicted against him. While the matter stood thus, , he was issued with another charge- sheet dated 12.6.1996 for his absence from attending the duty. Further, show cause notice dated 17.4.1998 was also issued calling for explanation of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering his explanation dated 27.5.1998 and without conducting any enquiry, the respondent-Management directly imposed the punishment of removal from service vide proceedings dated 13.8.1998. Questioning the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry was not conducted properly and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that this is not the first time that the petitioner absented from duties. Previously, he remained absent from 16.2.1995 to 26.4.1995 i.e. 192 days, without sending leave application, for which enquiry was conducted and punishment of stoppage of one increment was inflicted against him. Again, he absented from duty from 1.10.1995 to 31.10.1995 and a charge sheet was issued for his unauthorized absence. The petitioner did not submit any explanation to the said charge sheet despite issuance of two reminders dated 10.5.1996 and 5.6.1996. Considering the allegations against the petitioner, punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was inflicted against him. Likewise, he remained absent from duty, unauthorisedly, on several other occasions. Though the petitioner submitted leave application later, stating that his wife was sick, the sickness with which his wife was suffering was not revealed and the explanation submitted by the petitioner was found not satisfactory. Under those circumstances, the respondent, while considering the earlier misconduct of the same nature, imposed the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service and, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that in a case of this nature, no further enquiry needs to be conducted. It is a fact that six times the petitioner was punished for similar misconduct of absenteeism and even in the present case the same misconduct arose and all these facts were put to the petitioner and a show-cause notice was issued, but the petitioner did not improve his case in the explanation submitted by him and, therefore, the respondent had taken a decision to remove the petitioner from service, as the misconduct committed by the petitioner attracts the provisions of Service Regulation No. 77(f), for his repeated unauthorized absence. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the respondent has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the impugned proceedings of removal of the petitioner from service. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the apex Court in D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries Ltd. (1993 II LLJ 696), it has no relevance to the facts of the present case, therefore, it need not be delved into, in detail. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-02-2010. MVB.