JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet under Rule 153 of Railway 1 Protection Force Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The chargesheet pertained to the alleged unauthorised absence of the petitioner from the duty with effect from 7.4.1995. The charges framed against the petitioner show that he had remained absent for ten months in disobedience s of the orders of the superiors. He did not report back on duty despite various intimations sent to him. After conducting inquiry, the inquiry officer found that the charges against the petitioner stand proved. The inquiry officer also found that on 24.4.1995 after the petitioner was relieved by the D,M.O. Aligarh, the petitioner- remained absent without any information. The inquiry 10 report was. sent to the petitioner for making a representation against that. He did not submit any representation against the inquiry report despite being afforded with an opportunity. Annexure-A/29 records that 15 days time was granted to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he wanted to avail five days Casual 15 Leave for filing reply and since he was not granted time, he did not submit any objection to the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report and found that the delinquent petitioner did not avail the opportunity provided to him. He even failed to submit his objections to the inquiry report. No illegality can be found in the inquiry report and therefore, it 20 was found that ex-parte inquiry held was justified and the petitioner was ordered to be relieved from service. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order. The appellate authority vide Annexure-33 observed that the appeal has been rejected. The appellate authority found that on perusal of the case filed, it is found that the as petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself He was supplied with the copy of the relevant document and the findings recorded on the charges were also supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was charged for remaining absent from duty without reasonable cause for ten months. He only turned up when a chargesheet was issued under Rule 153 so of the Rules. He has reasoned that he was sick and was under treatment of a private doctor. He got himself treated by a private doctor without there being a reasonable cause not to get treated by Railway doctors. He only turned up when a chargesheet was issued under Rule 153 so of the Rules. He has reasoned that he was sick and was under treatment of a private doctor. He got himself treated by a private doctor without there being a reasonable cause not to get treated by Railway doctors. The appellate authority was of the opinion that the treatment availed by the petitioner is available in the Railway hospital and they are far better. The reasons given by the petitioner for going to the private doctor has been found to be not convincing in this background, the appellate authority confirmed the findings of the inquiry and punished the petitioner. 4. A revision was preferred by the petitioner. The revisional authority considered the revision and ultimately found that the excuse given by the delinquent officer that he absented due to his wife's illness who died in 1997 was not raised by the petitioner earlier all through the prevision proceedings. The petitioner continued to submit the case of his own sickness and entirely new case was set up before the revisional authority. The revisional authority did not agree with the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's case is of a Railway Protection Force Official remaining absent without having proper leave at his command. He only obtained three days Casual Leave and then, he has remaining absent without having proper leave at his command; He only obtained three days Casual Leave and then, he has remained absent for ten months. For explaining his absence, he showed that he was sick. The authorities below have considered the plea raised by the petitioner. The petitioner got himself discharged form the Railway Hospital and had gone to the Private Hospital without any reason. This conduct of the petitioner has not been appreciated and this has also been found by the authorities below that the facilities available at the Railway Hospital are better than the Private Hospitals. Thus, there was no reason as to why the petitioner should have gone to the Private doctors. The case of willful absence has been found. The notice sent to the petitioner for appearing turned out to be of no consequence. The petitioner only appeared after he was served with chargesheet. 6. Thus, there was no reason as to why the petitioner should have gone to the Private doctors. The case of willful absence has been found. The notice sent to the petitioner for appearing turned out to be of no consequence. The petitioner only appeared after he was served with chargesheet. 6. At a belated stage in revision, he has raised the question of sickness 25 of his wife. It was not found to be bonafide by the revisional authority as it was raised for the first time in revision. No infirmity of procedure is seen in the inquiry. The questions raised by the petitioner about his sickness has also been answered by the departmental authorities. This court feels that preference to Private doctors is only a ploy to justify his conduct which otherwise cannot be 30 seen with appreciation. The petitioner is serving the protection force of Railways which is supposed to be service of disciplined persons. The conduct of the petitioner is that of defying the norms of the disciplined service. In view of the aforesaid, it is not considered fit to make any interference. 7. An absence without leave is a serious matter and if the penalty of 35 dismissal has been awarded to the petitioner then, it cannot be said that it is dis-proportionate to the delinquency of the petitioner. 8. The writ petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed,Writ Petition Dismissed. *******