Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This application is directed against the orders, as contained in annexures 3, 5 and 6, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from services and his appeal and memorial filed against the order of dismissal have been rejected. 3. The petitioner, a police constable, was proceeded against departmentally on account of his absence from office unauthorisedly. Articles of charges were framed against the petitioner and in inquiry, charges were found proved against him and he was dismissed from services. However, the order of dismissal was set aside by the appellate authority with a direction to proceed in the matter afresh. Thereafter explanation was asked for from the petitioner. The explanation filed by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. However, the petitioner, delinquent, absented from the proceeding, and did not produce any witness in support of his case. The inquiry report thereafter was submitted finding the charges proved against him and on the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority found it a case of misconduct and, accordingly, dismissed him from services. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no fair play in the departmental proceeding, inasmuch as sufficient opportunities were not given to the petitioner to produce his witnesses nor copies of statements of witnesses were supplied. It is further submitted that the witnesses were examined behind his back, and, therefore, order of dismissal must be held to be violative of the principles of Natural Justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner after filing his written statement absented althrough and at no point of time, he produced his witnesses. It is further submitted that the petitioner started absenting from duty right from his training period and repeated the same. In the counter affidavit it is stated that notices were issued to the petitioner at his home address, which returned as undelivered and in that view of the matter, the authorities had no option but to conclude the proceeding. 6. No chit of paper has been produced by the petitioner to show that he, in fact, appeared in the proceeding or prayed for time to examine his witnesses. 7. Records of this case were called for and on perusal of the records, it transpired that full opportunities were given to the petitioner to defend his case. 6. No chit of paper has been produced by the petitioner to show that he, in fact, appeared in the proceeding or prayed for time to examine his witnesses. 7. Records of this case were called for and on perusal of the records, it transpired that full opportunities were given to the petitioner to defend his case. The charges levelled against the petitioner amounted to misconduct, and, therefore, the order of punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate to the guilt. The order of dismissal was examined in appeal and also in memorial and the same was not interfered with. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit in this application. 9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.