JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 5.10.2004. 3. The petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 5.5.2000 as a result of an enquiry conducted by the respondents for the alleged misconduct of remaining absent from duty without leave for three long periods. He was found guilty of remaining absent from duty without leave for 83 days in 1997, 326 days in 1998 and 21 days in January, 1999. 4. As it emerges from the order passed by the Tribunal, and about which there is no dispute now before us, that before imposing penalty of removal, the charge sheet was sought to be served on the petitioner personally on 19.3.1999 which he refused to receive in the presence of Ram Narain Meena and A.K. Saluja in the same Department in which the petitioner was working. Thereafter, the charge sheet was sent through registered post to his permanent address which was returned undelivered. The date fixed for the enquiry in the notice was 28.5.1999 and on which date, the petitioner was present in office before the then enquiry officer who asked him to take the charge-sheet and the notice of appointment of inquiry officer, but the applicant refused to take the above documents. The report in this regard has been produced before the Tribunal. The refusal of accepting the charge sheet and the order of appointing enquiry officer was witnessed by Shri N.M. Bambi, Sr. Section Officer, Shri Vijay Sinha, Sr. Section Officer, and M.L. Saini, CA. These documents were also sent to the petitioner's permanent residential address by registered post which also returned undelivered. These documents also contain the communications that within 10 days the petitioner may appoint a defence assistant. However, the petitioner stubbornly refused to take delivery of the charge sheet whether sought to be served personally or through registered post and he did not participate in the oral enquiry at all. 5. When the petitioner challenged the order of removal before the Tribunal, he laid emphasis about non service of the charge-sheet and failure to follow the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 22 of Railways Disciplinary Rules that he has not been given the enquiry report before imposing penalty. 6. 5. When the petitioner challenged the order of removal before the Tribunal, he laid emphasis about non service of the charge-sheet and failure to follow the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 22 of Railways Disciplinary Rules that he has not been given the enquiry report before imposing penalty. 6. On merit, his case has been that so far as his absence from duty in 1997 is concerned, the same has been regularised by sanctioning him extraordinary leave without pay for the period in question. For absence without leave for long period of 326 days in 1998, his defence was that in the year 1998, the applicant proceeded to his native village on 1.1.1998, it being a Restricted Holiday; he remained on casual leave on 2.1.1998 and 3 & 4.1.1998 which were Saturday & Sunday, as such general holidays. On 4.1.1998 some anti social elements attacked and injured the applicant and his family members over a property dispute necessitating indoor treatment in General Hospital, in proof of which treatment slips have been annexed as Annex. A/4. For this incident FIR was also lodged, on the basis of which case was challaned in judicial Court and the same is still pending as Govt. v. Kailash & Ors. bearing No. JF 85/98 . However, on 5.1.1998, the applicant along with his family members alleged to have appeared before the respondent authorities -and informed them regarding the incident and expressed inability to join duty due to injuries and requested to consider him on sick leave. Thereafter, the tension between the parties in the village remained high and due to apprehended danger to life, and frequent visits to Police Station, were the compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for him to resume duty. Copies of letters to SHO, Police Station, Renwal-Kishangarh, District Jaipur were also annexed. 7. He further stated that he resumed his duties on 1.10.1998 and was allowed to join the duties on 1.10.1998, therefore, he cannot be treated to be absent without leave for 326 days in calendar year 1998 and he was not allowed to sign attendance since 1.10.1998. For his absence from duty in January, 1999, he has stated that he has been continuously coming to the office. 8. The Tribunal taking notice of all these facts and considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. For his absence from duty in January, 1999, he has stated that he has been continuously coming to the office. 8. The Tribunal taking notice of all these facts and considering the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. v. B. Karunakar, etc., AIR 1994' SC 1074 was of the opinion that looking to the admitted facts that have come on record and the circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused because of non supply of enquiry report and the imposition of penalty of removal was the only appropriate penalty which can be imposed in the case of the petitioner who has demonstrably been in habit of absenting from duty for long duration time and again. 9. From the admitted facts, it is apparent that except for the leave application dated 5.1.1998, no leave application has been granted whether on medical ground or otherwise for the admitted long absence until at least 1st October, 1998. It has also been admitted that the petitioner was not actually functioning after 1.10.1998 and he has not signed the attendance register nor he had discharged any duty. It does not stand to reason if the petitioner had appeared on 1.10.1998 and was allowed to join duty as he alleges why he could have been precluded from signing the register thereafter, until enquiry commenced much later. 10. As far as applicant's contention that he had made representation to the respondent is concerned, the Tribunal has found categorically that: "Applicant has also not submitted any proof of having represented to the respondents about his difficulties arising from criminal cases and law and order problems in his village, being the reason for his absence from duty. The letters in this regard appended by him are addressed to the Police and not to the administration." 11. An employee is under the discipline of his employer and not the other Department. Correspondence with Police Department is of little relevance, as it is not addressed to the Department under which he was serving. 12. In these circumstances, the stubborn attitude of the petitioner in not availing the opportunity of defending offered to him by not accepting the charge-sheet and other documents does not countenance the allegations that he was not afforded adequate opportunity or the proceedings were conducted in breach of natural justice. 12. In these circumstances, the stubborn attitude of the petitioner in not availing the opportunity of defending offered to him by not accepting the charge-sheet and other documents does not countenance the allegations that he was not afforded adequate opportunity or the proceedings were conducted in breach of natural justice. What is essential is to offer adequate opportunity to defend oneself by participating in enquiry. But where the delinquent refuses to avail opportunity offered to him, he cannot complaint about lack of adequate opportunity of hearing, he himself being responsible for remaining away from the enquiry proceedings. The admitted position of long duration of absence without leave makes it abundantly clear that even if the enquiry report was submitted to the petitioner, no other conclusion was possible regarding misconduct of remaining absent from duty for long duration of almost 9 months at least during the calendar year 1998. In these circumstances, an officer who takes upon himself not to join duties for long duration at his will on spacious ground of prosecuting litigation, in our opinion, has been visited with just punishment of removal. 13. No interference is called for in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******