Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant writ petition has been filed against order dated 212.1990 (Annexure-5) whereby he was dismissed from service in a regular inquiry under Section 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”) and so also against appellate order dated 01.07.1991 (Annexure-6) rejecting his appeal. 2. Petitioner joined service as Constable (Civil Police) on 01.01.1986 and during service career, on earlier various occasions he remained absent for one or the other reason for which notices were issued and after taking note of his explanation, minor penalties were inflicted upon his but on 08.03.1990, while posted at Police Station Kotwali (Jaipur), he proceeded on 10 days casual leave and any how whereafter he did not turn up, and no intimation or extension of leave was sent by him. However, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 09.08.1990 (Annexure-1) and was served with charge-sheet dated 09.08.1990 (Annexure-2) under Rule 16 of CCA Rules whereunder two charges were imputed against him (i) with regard to wilful absence from 19.03.1990 till issuance of charge-sheet; and (ii) with respect to earlier misconduct of wilful absence for which he was punished on numerous occasions. Alongwith charge-sheet, itself, list of witnesses and document was enclosed. Inquiry officer was appointed on 14.09.1990 and issued letter dated 110.1990 and 111.1990 to appear in person on 211.1990. He appeared before inquiry officer and participated in course of inquiry and submitted application on 012.1990 asking for supply of documents and also seeking permission to appear through defence assistant Harman Singh. This fact has not been disputed that petitioner appeared and participated in course of inquiry but not cross-examined witnesses. After completion of inquiry proceedings, taking note of material, inquiry officer held petitioner guilty of both the charges and sent his report to disciplinary authority, who after taking note of entire material on record of inquiry concurred with finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer and consequently punished him with penalty of removal from service vide order dated 212.1990 (Annexure-5) which was upheld by appellate authority vide order dated 01.07.1991 (Annexure-6). Hence, this petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner vehemently urged that documents demanded and so also permission for defence assistant was not provided which has caused prejudice to his defence as he was prevented from defending properly before inquiry officer. Hence, this petition. 3. Counsel for petitioner vehemently urged that documents demanded and so also permission for defence assistant was not provided which has caused prejudice to his defence as he was prevented from defending properly before inquiry officer. Counsel also urged that copy of inquiry report was not supplied to petitioner, which was made a basis for holding him guilt; and that apart, finding of guilt recorded by inquiry officer affirmed by disciplinary authority for that imputed charges which were only of wilful absence, impugned punishment of removal from service is shockingly disproportionate and require interference. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court (DB) in Union of India vs. Babulal Yadav, 2005 (10) RDD 4541 . 4. Respondents in their reply averred that initially petitioner took casual leave for ten days regarding death of his sisters son which was sanctioned by competent authority but after expiry of this leave period, he did not report and resume the duty with no intimation for extension of leave also, which persisted respondents to place him under suspension and issuance of charge-sheet in question and that apart before issuance of charge-sheet, notice was also sent to him on 23.05.1990 calling upon him to report for duty, which was served upon his nephew because petitioner was not available. Again notice was sent at the residence of petitioner on 11.06.1990, which was received by his younger brother, Ishwar Singh. Counsel for respondents urged that despite notices served, petitioner failed to report for duty, hence was charge-sheeted and placed under suspension. He reported for duty on 18.08.1990 and for his alleged illness, no sickness cum medical fitness certificate was produced at that time and on 18.08.1990, 15 days time was granted to file reply to the charge-sheet but again he failed to do so rather disappeared as such inquiry officer again issued letter dated 210.1990 for ex parte proceedings in case of his non-appearance on 211.1990. Counsel also urged that after taking adjournment of 10 days on 211.1990 petitioner further failed to appear and ultimately inquiry stood concluded on 012.1990 and after taking note of material on record, inquiry officer rightly held him guilty of imputed charges which were rightly affirmed by disciplinary authority by passing a detailed and reasoned order of punishment dated 212.1990 and upheld by appellate authority, which requires no judicial review by this Court. 5. 5. I have considered contentions of Counsel for the parties and, with their assistance, examined material on record. Working in police department, disciplinary in his conduct was imperative. It is evident from record that petitioner joined service in January, 1986 and from a bare reading of imputed charge No. 2 it is clear that on numerous occasions in between short span of his two years service from 19.04.1988 to 20.01.1990 he remained willfully absent for one or the other reason for which after due inquiry and holding him guilty, was punished with different penalties. Even as per charge No. 1 he submitted application for casual leave because of death of his nephew and never reported back for duty whereafter till charge-sheet was issued, and as per reply of respondents, he reported for duty on 18.08.1990 on the pretext that he remained absent because of his sickness but surprisingly enough no sickness-cum-medical fitness certificate was produced at the time of reporting for duty on 18.08.1990 or thereafter nor any material has been placed on record that he ever intimated for extension of leave on the ground of his sickness before reporting for duty or after proceeding on 10 days, casual leave. The fact of sending of notices before issuing charge-sheet, as pleaded in the reply, has not been controverted by petitioner. Even as per impugned orders of disciplinary and appellate authority, ample opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner in course of inquiry to submit his defence by way of explanation, if any against the imputed charges alongwith supporting documents in defence but he failed to appear and did not produce any document in support of his defence. In Para 3 of appellate order it has been observed that all documents, referred to, were made available to petitioner. 6. As regards application submitted by petitioner for permission of defence assistant or supply of documents, it is clear from record that these applications were made on or about the dates on which inquiry officer had already concluded the inquiry and sent his report to disciplinary authority, and in these facts situations, application seeking permission for defence assistance will be of no significance when delinquent petitioner, himself , failed to appear despite adjournments sought by him on the fixed dates. That apart, charges were imputed of wilful absence and petitioner failed to justify either before inquiry or disciplinary authority with regard to his willful absence in question. Even when specific question was put to Counsel for petitioner about justification available which prima facie show reason as to why he could not report back for duty after expiry of sanctioned 10 days casual leave. Counsel failed to justify in this regard even in writ petition, nothing has been pleaded in this regard. In my opinion, no prejudice has caused to the petitioner even if he was not provided with defence assistance. 7. As regard non-supply of copy of inquiry report, in my opinion, disciplinary authority has considered in details about facts and statements referred to before him and recorded its independent opinion while holding petitioner guilty of imputed charges and mere non-supply of copy of inquiry report will not be fatal in any manner and prejudice if at all caused to him, has not been substantiated by material on record and even otherwise from a perusal of impugned order of punishment, it is evident that disciplinary authority independently examined entire record of inquiry which does not offend to basic principle of natural justice while taking decision of holding delinquent petitioner guilty. 8. Judgment on which Counsel for petitioner placed reliance in Union of India vs. Babulal Yadav (Supra), is of no assistance because it was a case where there was absence for one single span of leave period whereas in instant case, petitioner was habitual absentee in a short span of service and despite that, as is evident from impugned charge-sheet, he again proceeded on leave without prior intimation or extension of leave with prior permission. 9. Even in my opinion, if person is a habitual absentee for one or the other reason, it will certainly create indiscipline in administration and that too in discipline force where such excuses are not acceptable particularly when incumbent fails to show any justification for his imputed absence, which in instant case petitioner failed to show for his imputed absence on numerous occasions and impugned punishment in these facts situation is not shockingly disproportionate which requires interference. Both the impugned orders of disciplinary and appellate authority in my opinion are well founded and reasoned warranting no interference by this Court, as having been passed in consonance with provisions contained in Rules 16(9), 16(10) and Rule 30 of CCA Rules. 10. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.