JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks quashing of the judgment and order dated 5.7.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 1076 of 1996, the order dated 22.6.1996 passed by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Allahabad, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 22.4.1994 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad whereby the petitioner’s services have been terminated. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he was employed in class IV category and was promoted in class III category as Fitter in the Northern Railway. The charge sheet dated 31.3.1993 was served upon the petitioner for the misconduct of being unauthorisely absent since 5.10.1988 without any sanctioned leave. A further charge sheet was that he had made direct correspondence with the Hon’ble Railway Minister and that he refused to obey the direction when he was asked to join his service. An enquiry was conducted and the charges against the petitioner were found to have been proved. The petitioner states that the enquiry was conducted behind his back. The disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of punishment without serving copy of enquiry report. The petitioner contends that his absence from duty from 5.10.1988 upto 31.3.1993 was due to his illness and illness of his wife. It is his case that he had filed medical certificate but the Inquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the said certificate. 3. The respondents have denied the averments made by the petitioner and have stated that the principles of natural justice were strictly followed during the enquiry and the disciplinary authority has agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer while considering the reply of the petitioner and passing the order imposing the punishment. 4. Before the Tribunal the records of the disciplinary proceedings were produced and the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the Inquiry Officer has given repeated reminders regarding the next dates but the petitioner did not appear during the enquiry. It has been held by the Tribunal, on the basis of the record of the disciplinary proceedings, that the applicant was given a show cause notice and was supplied with the enquiry report. 5. We have heard Sri Rameshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. It has been held by the Tribunal, on the basis of the record of the disciplinary proceedings, that the applicant was given a show cause notice and was supplied with the enquiry report. 5. We have heard Sri Rameshwar Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal with respect to compliance of principles of natural justice by the Inquiry Officer are based on a perusal of the record of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate or establish that the Inquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry behind his back or that the principles of natural justice had been violated by the Inquiry Officer particularly when sufficient notice of the date fixed before the enquiry has been given to the charged employee and he in his wisdom chooses not to participate in the enquiry. Opportunity to the charged employee was given in the present case as has been found by the Tribunal on a perusal of the record produced before it hence the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry is vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted. 7. The petitioner has made averment in the writ petition to the effect that he was not supplied the copy of enquiry report. The Tribunal upon going through the record of proceeding produced before it has recorded a finding that the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner alongwith show cause notice. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is in any way erroneous. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings are vitiated due to non-supply of enquiry report is therefore not borne out from the record. Moreover, it has not been shown to this Court that the defence of the petitioner while replying to the show cause notice has in any manner been prejudiced due to alleged non-supply of enquiry report. In fact the absence of the petitioner from his duty for a period of more than four years is admitted by him although he has attempted to explain his absence before this Court. 8. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained absent due to his illness and illness of his wife. In fact the absence of the petitioner from his duty for a period of more than four years is admitted by him although he has attempted to explain his absence before this Court. 8. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained absent due to his illness and illness of his wife. He has submitted that the petitioner had applied for medical leave and had filed the required medical certificate alongwith his leave applications. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures 1 to 4 of the writ petition which according to him were applications made by the petitioner for leave. A perusal of Annexcure-1 indicates that it is an application dated 28.3.1992 wherein the applicant had requested for being permitted to join his duty. Annexure-2 dated 8.4.1992 also pertains to permission to join his duty. The next Annexure dated 1.5.1992 is a request for being permitted to be medically examined for joining the duty. Annexure-4 is an undated application, also with a request for permission to join his duty. Admittedly the petitioner remained absent from duty from 5.10.1988 whereas the aforesaid applications relate to the year 1992 and are not applications for medical leave. A representation dated 14.7.1992 was made by the petitioner directly to the Hon’ble Railway Minister wherein again the prayer of the petitioner is for being allowed to join his duty after recovery of his wife from illness. Such representation has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. In the writ petition, although the averment has been made that the petitioner had applied for medical leave, but there is no document annexed which could show that from 5.10.1988 onwards the petitioner had regularly applied for leave. Therefore, mere reference of an alleged application for leave can not help the petitioner in the absence of such an application on the record of the writ petition. 9. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he has stated that copies of leave applications and medical certificates were submitted by the petitioner relating to the relevant period. It is also alleged that the aforesaid papers were filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid papers. 9. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he has stated that copies of leave applications and medical certificates were submitted by the petitioner relating to the relevant period. It is also alleged that the aforesaid papers were filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid papers. A perusal of the annexures filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit indicates that he had made an application for being granted leave on account of illness of his wife. However, the said document contains two dates. The date at the top of the document is 5.10.1988 and the date endorsed by the petitioner under his signature at the bottom of document is 23.3.1990. The postal receipt filed by the petitioner to show that the said application was sent is of the year 1990, therefore prima facie upon a perusal of the said document and postal receipt it is quite apparent that the said application cannot be believed to have been made on 5.10.1988. The opening sentence of this application indicates that the leave is being applied for from 5.10.1988 to 1.2.1990. Consequently, even if this application is presumed to have been made on the date as mentioned at the bottom the absence of the petitioner from 5.10.1988 to 23.3.1990 is unauthorised and without any sanctioned leave. The petitioner has filed another application dated 24.4.1990 to the same effect. After the aforesaid two applications the other applications annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit relate to the subsequent period and are mainly requests for being permitted to join. The medical certificate filed along with supplementary affidavit does not appear to be accompanied by any leave application and therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for medical leave from time to time and therefore he was absent on sanctioned leave cannot be believed. The petitioner has also filed an application addressed to the police authorities and administrative authorities whereby he has made complaints against the respondent No. 6 who is the own brother in law of the petitioner. Such document containing complaints against his own brother in law had no relation to the absence of the petitioner from duty without obtaining leave. The petitioner has also filed an application addressed to the police authorities and administrative authorities whereby he has made complaints against the respondent No. 6 who is the own brother in law of the petitioner. Such document containing complaints against his own brother in law had no relation to the absence of the petitioner from duty without obtaining leave. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that voluminous documents indicate that the petitioner had applied for medical leave from time to time is not borne out from the record of this writ petition and his contention that the said documents establish that the petitioner had applied for medical leave from time to time is unfounded. Consequently the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the above issue cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous or illegal in any manner whatsoever. 10. From the aforesaid discussion it is seen that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate even before this Court that he was on medical leave and therefore his absence for about four years and five months was bona fide and on sanctioned leave. The findings of the Inquiry Officer and concurrence of the disciplinary authority cannot therefore be said to be erroneous in any manner whatsoever. The appellate authority has considered the appeal of the petitioner and finding no substance in the same has rightly rejected the appeal. The punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority for unauthorised absence for a long period of about four years and 5 months cannot be said to be illegal or disproportionate. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mansoor Ali Khan v. Aligarh Muslim University and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1546 , and has contended that as the total period of absence from duty did not exceed five years hence the petitioner could not have been awarded the punishment of removal from service. In the aforesaid case, this Court was considering the question as to whether under the Aligarh Muslim University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 over stay of leave would amount to automatic cessation of service. In the said case the Court interpreted Rule 10 which provides for such an eventuality where an employee after expiry of his leave remained absent from duty. In the said case the Court interpreted Rule 10 which provides for such an eventuality where an employee after expiry of his leave remained absent from duty. The facts and the circumstances of the present case are not at all similar to the case of Mansoor Ali Khan (supra). The Rules which were subject matter of consideration in the case of Mansoor Ali Khan (supra) do not apply in the case of the petitioner. No such rules have been relied upon by him. It is settled law that the case law is an authority on a point law which it decides. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of H.H. Maharajadhiraja Mahadev Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur and others v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530 held as quoted hereunder : “It is difficult to regard a word, a clause or a sentence occurring in a judgment of this Court, divorced from its context, as containing a full exposition of the law on a question when the question did not even fall to be answered in that judgment.” 12. The fact of each case being different care has to be taken to relate the observations to the précised issue before the Court. Therefore, this Court finds that the decision in the case of Mansoor Ali Khan (supra) is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. It has come on record that the authorities concerned had directed the petitioner to join his duty by the communication dated 12.8.1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). However the petitioner did not join his duty in spite of the said request. In the case of Y.P. Sarabhai v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2948 the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the Bank officer remained absent from duty for a very long period without any reasonable cause or justification and inspite of request to join his duty the conduct of the appellant therein clearly showed that he was bent upon to evade the transfer order in any manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore, upheld the order of dismissal. 14. Unauthorised absence from duty for such a long period for about four years and five months is detrimental to the establishment and also shows the casual nature of the petitioner in performance of his duty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore, upheld the order of dismissal. 14. Unauthorised absence from duty for such a long period for about four years and five months is detrimental to the establishment and also shows the casual nature of the petitioner in performance of his duty. This fact coupled with the circumstance that the petitioner did not think it proper to apply for leave from time to time is also indicative that his absence was unauthorised to his own knowledge. It is not a case where the petitioner had applied for leave with effect from 5.10.1988 and had proceeded on the premise that the said leave would be granted. In the present case, no such leave application was made by the petitioner who absented himself unauthorisingly. As has been seen from the record of the case the petitioner has not made any leave application nor he had applied from time to time in the anticipation of leave being sanctioned. There is total inaction on the part of the petitioner in so far as applying for leave is concerned. The absence of the petitioner from duty is therefore clearly unauthorised. 15. This is not case of overstay after expiry of sanctioned leave. The medical certificates do not appear to have been filed before the concerned authority along with leave applications and therefore, cannot be taken into consideration by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 16. It is settled law that in a matter of disciplinary proceeding the High Court exercises limited power. This Court can only see as to whether the enquiry was held by a competent authority, principles of natural justice were complied with or not, and the findings or conclusion were based on some evidence. This Court cannot interfere in the decision taken by the administrative authority in the absence of violation of any of the above. In the present case the Central Administrative Tribunal has considered the entire record produced before it and has recorded its finding against the petitioner. This Court does not find any illegality or error in the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 17. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. Petition Dismissed. ———