A. C. KABBIN, J. ( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition, a former Assistant surgeon-cum-Health Officer of the department of Health and Family Welfare services, has challenged the order dated september 17, 2003 passed by the Karnataka administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing his application (i. e. Application No. 2149/2000)in which he had sought for setting aside an order of the Government dismissing him from service. ( 2 ) BY order dated June 27, 1996 a charge memo was served on the petitioner on the charge that after his repatriation from ESI to the Department of Health nd Family Welfare services, he had remained absent from duty for the period from August 28, 1985 to October 19, 1995 and that though subsequently, he was posted to Mangelagi in Chittapur taluk, gulbarga District on November 18, 1993, he did not take charge at the place of his posting. ( 3 ) THE petitioner gave a reply on July 30, 1996, contending that in pursuance of transfer order, he was relieved from ESI, Bangalore, on April 26, 1985 and that though he had reported for duty at ESI, Mangalore he was not taken to duty on the ground that there was no vacancy in the ESI Hospital, Mangalore. It was claimed by him that, soon thereafter, he returned to Bangalore and reported to the Head office at Bangaiore on September 2, 1995 and sought for posting at Bangalore. As regards his failure to report at Mangelagi pursuant to the posting order dated November 18, 1993, he pleaded certain personal difficulties to go to a far off place from Bangalore and contended that he had sought for a posting at Bangalore. ( 4 ) AFTER inquiry, it was held by the inquiring Authority and the Disciplinary authority that charges about unauthorised absence and failure to report at the place of new posting had been proved. The Disciplinary authority further found that the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his contentions were not genuine and had been created. In the result, the Disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of dismissal by order dated August 29, 2000. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the karnataka Administrative Tribunal in application No. 2149/2000. The, administrative Tribunal, on consideration of the materials, dismissed his application, thereby confirming the order of the disciplinary Authority. It is that order which has been challenged in this Writ Petition. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the karnataka Administrative Tribunal in application No. 2149/2000. The, administrative Tribunal, on consideration of the materials, dismissed his application, thereby confirming the order of the disciplinary Authority. It is that order which has been challenged in this Writ Petition. ( 5 ) IT has been found both by the disciplinary Authority and the Administrative tribunal that the petitioner was pressurising the government for a posting at Bangalore. He had even sought for a direction from the Chief minister for posting him to either Victoria hospital or K. C. General Hospital, Bangalore. It has been concluded that he had failed to report for duty at Mangalore and later at mangelagi, and for his act, he had been kept; under suspension pending enquiry. After detailed inquiry, the Inquiring Authority had held that the charge had been proved, which finding was accepted by the Disciplinary authority. Considering all the matters, the administrative Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the inquiring Authority accepted by the disciplinary Authority that the petitioner had remained absent unauthorisedly and that even at new place of posting, he had failed to report for duty is a finding which cannot be held to be perverse. ( 6 ) A Government servant, who fails to obey a transfer order, without sufficient and justifiable cause is liable to be disciplined. It must be borne in mind by all public servants, particularly those who deal with essential services that even a day's absence by them cause immense inconvenience to the general public. Transfer is an incidence of service and personal inconvenience pales into insignificance considering the priority of duty in the place of new posting. Of course such employee may plead for modification of transfer order if there are genuine difficulties, and the controlling Authority may sympathetically consider them, but the pendency of such a request for modification of the transfer order will not entitle the transferred officer to ignore the transfer order. He is bound to obey the order, except when the transfer order is kept in abeyance. He is bound to obey the order, except when the transfer order is kept in abeyance. ( 7 ) IT was argued by Sri M. V. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had in fact reported for duty at mangalore, but, that he was not taken to duty on the ground that there was no vacancy and that therefore he came back to Bangalore and reported in the Head Quarters. In this regard, he relies on the letter dated May 3, 1985 written by the Administrative Medical Officer, ESI hospital to the Directorate of Health and family Service, wherein giving particulars of vacancy position in ESI Hospital, Mangalore, it is stated that there was no vacancy of insurance Medical Officer in that hospital at that time. As rightly pointed out by the learned high Court Government Pleader, that letter is of no help to the petitioner since that does not show that the petitioner was not taken to duty on the ground that there was no vacancy in mangalore at that time. In fact in his reply to the charge memo the petitioner has admitted that he did not report for duty at Mangalore, since there was no vacancy there. There is also no material to show that he reported in the Head quarters at Bangalore in 1985 bringing to the notice of the Director of Health and Family welfare Services that he was not taken to duty at Mangalore. In the absence of such material, he cannot contend that he was not given any posting. Correspondence of the Department in this regard clearly shows that all along the department repeatedly pointed out that the petitioner did not join duty at Mangalore. Admittedly, he did not obey the subsequent transfer order, to Mangelagi. The Disciplinary authority was therefore, right in holding that the charge had been proved. The finding of the disciplinary Authority has been accepted by the Administrative Tribunal. That being a finding of fact, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order of the Administrative I tribunal. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we pass the following order: the Writ Petition is not admitted and it is rejected. --- *** --- .