Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner has challenged in this petition the order of termination passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate order, whereby, the appeal against the termination order was dismissed. He was dismissed from service on the ground that he continuously remained absent for 93 days without obtaining - prior permission from the authority. The petitioner was working in the police department as police constable. When he returned to service, he submitted the medical certificates and, thereupon, he was asked to certify it from the medical board, but he did not do so. On several occasions also he was found absent from duty on surprise checking. Once he was found sleeping while on duty in the night hours. He was armed police constable, therefore, he should be more vigilant. One more charge against him was that he was found taking liquor while on duty with others. He was given ample opportunity in the domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer found the charges levelled against him to be proved. Thereupon, after issuing notice the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service by the impugned order at Annex. 6. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was not supplied the enquiry report, therefore, he was unable to defend himself. He submits that failure to supply report of the enquiry officer is in clear violation of principles of natural justice in view of the Supreme Court Judgement in case of Mohd. Ramzan reported in (1), therefore, he submits that the impugned order be set aside. That Supreme Court judgment has no application to the facts of this case because the Supreme Court has itself made it clear that it will have prospective effect. Here in this case the impugned order of termination is prior to Supreme Court judgment. Lateron, the Supreme Court in a case reported in (2) has classified it. In my opinion remaining absent from duty would be a serious mis- conduct, if the persons are employed in sensitive department like Police Department or Army etc. It must be treated as a very serious mis-conduct for which no other penalty except the penalty of dismissal from service, would be passed. Therefore, the submission that the punishment was highly dis-proportionate cannot be accepted. (3). In view of the above, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no costs.