Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the orders, as contained in annexure 3, 4 and 9. 3. By order, as contained in annexure 3 dated 25.4.1988 the petitioner was dismissed from services on charge of misconduct and his statutory appeal and memorial thereafter were dismissed vide orders, as contained in annexures 4 and 9. 4. It appears that the petitioner absented for 137 days from duty unauth-orisedly. This was treated to be misconduct and accordingly, a departmental inquiry was initiated against him. Article of charges was served upon him and thereafter inquiry was conducted after a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner never turned up before the inquiry officer nor he filed show-cause. The inquiry officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner proved and recommended for necessary action. The inquiry report was acted upon by the disciplinary authority and vide order, as contained in annexure 3, punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from services was awarded, which, subsequently, was affirmed in appeal and memorial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify the prolonged absence of the petitioner on the ground that he suffered from mental disease, and, accordingly, he was treated by mental doctors at Patna and after recovery from the mental disease, the petitioner reported his duty on 25.2.1986. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that ex parte order was passed in the departmental proceeding without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, and secondly that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the guilt. 7. Mr. S.J. Rahman, Government Pleader No. 7, on the contrary, submitted that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his defence and even after show-cause notice, he did not file any show-cause nor he turned up before the conducting officer to put forth his defence. It is further contended that it appears to be a case of gross misconduct and for the petitioners absence for 137 days unauthorisedly the order impugned is wholly justified. 8. It appears from the materials on record that a show-cause notice was given to the petitioner to explain his conduct for his prolonged absence. The petitioner never filed any show-cause nor he turned up before the conducting officer to put forth his defence and when he appeared on duty he filed certain prescriptions of the doctors showing about his ailment. 9. The petitioner never filed any show-cause nor he turned up before the conducting officer to put forth his defence and when he appeared on duty he filed certain prescriptions of the doctors showing about his ailment. 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for leave, which was not sanctioned, rather it appears that the petitioner never applied for leave and absented himself unauthorisedly for 137 days. 10. It appears that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved and the inquiry was concluded after following the due process of law and principles of Natural Justice. 11. In this view of the matter, the order of punishment cannot be said to be without jurisdiction nor it appears to be a case of disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any merit in this application. 13. It is, accordingly, dismissed.