WP(C) 3291/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard M r. S. Das, learned Government Advocate who represents the respondents. 2. The petitioner who served as a Naik in the Assam Special Reserve Force B attalion II challenges the order dated 24.8.1999 by which, in pursuant to a disc iplinary proceeding and a enquiry finding, he has been dismissed from service. 3. The statement of allegation made against the petitioner shows that he le ft the Battalion Headquarter Armoury on 28.9.1998 without leave or permission an d accordingly committed gross negligence of duty. It was also alleged that he wa s found absent from duty w.e.f. 28.9.1998 till the date of the first show cause notice on 18.12.1998 without authorization and accordingly he was charged with g ross indiscipline and misconduct. Nine instances of previous such unauthorized a bsence were also reflected in the charge memo where it was recorded that for the earlier misconducts, lesser punishment was imposed with the expectation that th e delinquent would improve his conduct and he was not removed from service, but such expectation have been belied by the latest misconduct of the delinquent. 4. The petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice admitted that he le ft the Battalion Headquarter in a sudden rush of blood, after he was denied leav e as because he was suffering from stomach ailment. 5. As the explanation was found unsatisfactory an enquiry was conducted by one C.M. Rajkhowa, Assistant Commandant, during which the charges were found to be established. 5. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter furnished to the petitioner a copy of the Inquiry report along with the second show cause notice dated 8.6.1999 an d asked him to give his response on the proposed punishment of removal from serv ice. But as no reply was furnished, considering that the petitioner is habituate d to indisciplined conduct through unauthorized absence, the impugned penalty wa s inflicted upon him. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it is argued by Mr. S.K. Sinha that the deli nquent was treated as a indoor patient in the Golaghat Civil Hospital from 8.10. 1998 to 7.12.1998 and therefore it can be well understood that only because of h is health condition the petitioner left the Bn. Headquarters on 28.9.1998 when l eave permission was denied to him. The learned counsel also submits that the pun ishment is disproportionate in as much as, the delinquent has been charged only with unauthorized absence which is not a serious offence. Mr. Sinha submits furt her that the enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent and as such he c ould not file any reply to the second show cause notice dated 8.6.1999 7. Par contra, Mr. S. Das, learned Government Advocate by producing the rec ords of the Disciplinary Proceeding submits that the charges against the delinqu ent have been appropriately enquired into and the delinquent was given all oppor tunities to defend the charges and since the impugned punishment has been inflic ted in pursuant to a fair and transparent proceeding, there is little scope for interference with the impugned action by a Writ Court. From the original record, the learned Government Advocate points out that the delinquent had acknowledged receipt of the second show cause notice dated 8.6.1999 along with which the enq uiry report was enclosed and therefore the plea taken that the enquiry report wa s not served on him, cannot at all be believed. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had not sought leave for medical problem but had applied for Headquar ter leave permission due to some domestic affairs and since such leave was not g ranted, the delinquent left the Bn. Headquarter without securing any leave or p ermission. 8. I have perused the relevant records of the disciplinary proceeding and f ind that the delinquent was afforded a fair opportunity to defend the charges in the enquiry. The defence versions projected by the delinquent have also been co nsidered by the enquiry officer. It is seen that the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the delinquent along with the second show cause notice dated 8. 6.1999 and the delinquent had acknowledged the receipt of the same. 9. In the above circumstances, the conclusion reached by the enquiry office r about the delinquent leaving the Bn. Headquarter without any permission and re maining absent without authorization for a long time, is found to be rightly est ablished. The delinquent did receive medical treatment for some time during the period he remained in unauthorized absence. But that by itself in my view cannot obliterate the fact that the petitioner left the Bn. Headquarter without permis sion and intimation and this is not on account of any pressing medical problem s uffered by the delinquent on 28.9.1998, when he left the Bn. Headquarter. The re ason for leaving the Bn. Headquarter was different and not for medical reason as has been projected in the present case. 10 In the context of the earlier history of similar misconducts of unauthor ized absence on as many as 9 occasions and having regard to the fact that the de linquent is a member of a disciplined force, I do not consider the punishment to be disproportionate since absence without authorization cannot be considered to be a minor infringement for members of the disciplined force. 11. It may also be noted that although the delinquent was dismissed from ser vice on 24.8.1999, he approached this Court at a much belated stage in the year 2006 and the explanation furnished is that he had filed a representation against the dismissal. It is seen that the representation filed by the petitioner on 11 .11.2003 too was belatedly filed and was considered by the Appellate Authority a s time barred. Such belated approach indicates that the petitioner was not vigil ant about pursuing his remedy and therefore I feel that he does not deserve any equitable consideration from this Court. 12. In view of the above discussion and the conclusion, I see no reason to e ntertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.