( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6804 OF 2010 Shivaji s/o Anandrao Bhosle PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. B.A. Shinde, advocate for the petitioner. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 6th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioner was removed from service after holding departmental enquiry. The charge levelled against him was that he habitually remained absent from duty. The petitioner was admittedly working as Assistant Teacher on establishment of the respondent No. 3 – Zilla Parishad. The petitioner’s prolonged absenteeism from duty was considered as a ground after allowing him to join the duty on one occasion, he was found absent for period between 08-02-1996 to 18-03-2004. He alleged that he was depressed and, therefore, ( 2 ) had gone out of station. The prolonged absence of the petitioner from the duty was detrimental to the interest of the students for whom, his services were important in the rural area. The police patil of the village gave report that he was not available at the place of residence, nor he attended the place of work. The presence of the petitioner was sought during the course of departmental enquiry by issuing publication in a newspaper. Even then, he did not appear to attend the enquiry. The Zilla Parishad was required to move the police station, Osmanabad to take up proceedings under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner. It is important to notice that not only that, he was absent from 08-02-1996 till 18-03-2004, yet, earlier also, he was frequently absent from the duty. For example, between 30-06-1993 till 31-07-1995, he was absent for 666 days. On his representation, by order dated 28-07-1995, he was allowed to join the duty and the period of absenteeism was treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Again, he submitted application dated 07-02-1996 for casual leave and thereafter, remained absent. It is obvious that time and again, the same mistake was committed by him. There is no tangible evidence to infer that he had lost mental balance or was suffering from any medical problem during the relevant period. The ( 3 ) termination was effected as a result of the departmental enquiry. His appeal against the order of termination was dismissed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad and the same order is confirmed by the Hon’ble Minister for Rural Development Department, Mantralaya. Considering the track record of prolonged absenteeism of the petitioner, I do not find merit in the petition. Petition is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp6804-10