(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Letters Patent Appeal No. 50 of 2009 Dilip s/o. Shankar Patil, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Vadali, Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon. .. Appellant. versus Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Through Sub-Divisional Engineer, Z.P. Works Sub-Division, Jalgaon. .. Respondent. .......................... Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Mundhe, Advocate, for the respondent. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 30TH JULY 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the (2) order dated 13th December 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, in Writ Petition No. 816/2007, thereby dismissing the petition filed by the present appellant. 2. The appellant, who remained absent for a period of almost seven and half years, was dismissed after holding enquiry. Since the appellant did not remain present, the enquiry was conducted ex parte. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a complaint. The complaint was partly allowed holding that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. An order of reinstatement with continuity, however, without back wages, was granted. Being aggrieved thereby, revision was preferred by the respondent. The revision was allowed. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant filed a Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge of this court, by a speaking order, has dismissed the Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Pradeep Shahane, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in rejecting the Writ Petition. He submits that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the fact, that the Labour Court had only granted reinstatement, without any back wages and, as such, ought to have upheld the order of the Labour Court. 4. Mr. B.S. Mundhe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the learned Single Judge, by a well reasoned order, has rejected the petition and, as such, the present petition is without any substance. (3) 5. The revisional court, as well as, the learned Single Judge have held that the Labour Court had totally misdirected itself. The appellant had remained absent for a long period of seven and half years. The learned Single Judge has found that it was a gross case of unauthorized absenteeism. It has been found from the record, that till order of dismissal was served on the appellant, he did not report regarding his illness even on single occasion. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, thereby dismissing the petition. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/lpa50