K. J. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN spite of service of notice of this application none appears to oppose this writ petition. By this writ petition the award passed by the learned Tribunal has been challenged. ( 2 ) SRI Ganguly, learned lawyer appearing for the writ-petitioner submits that the impugned order on the face of it is arbitrary and perverse and suffers from bias and non-application of mind. Moreover, this award should not have been passed upsetting the enquiry report made by enquiry officer upon fact finding and documents. The learned Tribunal has absolutely overlooked that the concerned employee has admitted his misconduct, therefore, there was no point to upset the report of the enquiry officer. ( 3 ) HAVING considered the materials placed before me and considered the submissions made by Sri Ganguly, J am of the view, the enquiry officer after giving all opportunities to the delinquent employee has come to a fact finding. The reasonings of the learned Tribunal for upsetting the report of the enquiry officer is that without giving proper opportunity of being heard the order of dismissal was passed and so the enquiry officer held guilty. After perusal of the report of the enquiry officer I have found it is not the case without giving any opportunity. The matter has been disputed of. It appears that the delinquent officer on the second day appeared before the enquiry officer, thereafter without permission of the enquiry officer left the enquiry proceeding intending not to contest the disciplinary proceeding. It is not the duty of the employer or for that matter the enquiry officer to get hold of the delinquent. It is good enough to serve a notice upon the delinquent. It appears in response to the notice the delinquent did appear. Therefore it was not the duty of the enquiry officer to wait for another day for further appearance and arrival of the delinquent at his whims and caprice. I am of the view that the enquiry officer has rightly concluded the hearing and reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent employee. I am of the further view that the principle of affording reasonable opportunity is not one way traffic. It is for the person who is on the receiving end to avail of such opportunity. I am of the view that the enquiry officer has rightly concluded the hearing and reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent employee. I am of the further view that the principle of affording reasonable opportunity is not one way traffic. It is for the person who is on the receiving end to avail of such opportunity. If he does not avail of this opportunity upon his own misconduct then in that case the enquiry officer would be well within his right to proceed in his absence. ( 4 ) I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the report of the enquiry officer so also the order of punishment. I place it on record that the delinquent employee has taken up another employment gainfully at some other place and such fact is borne out by the record. Therefore I set aside the impugned award and uphold the order of dismissal and the report of the enquiry officer. I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order suffers from perversity and total non-application of mind. ( 5 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. All interim orders stand vacated.