ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Baban Singh, against the order dated 12 th July, 2005, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3220 of 2005, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition, preferred by the appellant against the order of dismissal, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant while posted as Constable in the Sadar Court, Dhanbad, absconded since 1 st November, 2000. A departmental proceeding was initiated and charge-sheet was issued vide Memo No. 4839 dated 24 th November, 2000. It was alleged that the appellant is absconding since 18 th November, 2000 without prior permission, which has become the habit of the appellant, effect of which also falls on the other police personnel. Such absconding from duty without notice and leave was alleged to be misconduct, insubordination, dereliction of duty, irresponsibility and unbecoming of a police personnel. Letter No. 37/2000 issued by the Incharge, Sadar Court, was cited as Ext.1 and one Kapildeo Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sadar Court, Hajat Incharge, Dhanbad, was cited as Prosecution Witness No. 1. The appellant was put under suspension and was asked to submit show cause reply. 3. It appears that the appellant neither submitted show cause reply nor took part in the departmental proceeding and the enquiry officer submitted exparte enquiry report dated 8 th June, 2001, holding the appellant guilty of the charges. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant vide Memo No. 4294 dated 28 th July, 2001 by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, followed by another show cause notice, issued by him on 9 th May, 200, whereby, the appellant was asked as to why he be not dismissed from service, having been found guilty in the departmental proceeding. 4. According to the appellant, he replied to the show cause notice and pointed out that no notice was issued to him, informing (sic) date of enquiry; the enquiry was held exparte and he was (sic) from duty because of pain in the stomach and having been (sic) by the doctor. 4. According to the appellant, he replied to the show cause notice and pointed out that no notice was issued to him, informing (sic) date of enquiry; the enquiry was held exparte and he was (sic) from duty because of pain in the stomach and having been (sic) by the doctor. After considering the show cause reply and taking into consideration the enquiry report and past records of service and the fact that the appellant remained absconder for about eleven times and rejoined the duties much beyond, the period of leave, dismissed him from service by the impugned order dated 27 th July, 2003. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of dismissal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Coal Area, Bokaro by order dated 13 th March, 2004. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 12 th July, 2005 having noticed that number of time the departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence from duty having been initiated and punishment having been imposed on the appellant for about seventeen time during his service career, held the punishment of dismissal proportionate to the charges and thereby, dismissed the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the appellant argued in length but actually raised the following points for consideration: (i) The departmental proceeding, having been conducted exparte, violating the principle of natural justice, cannot be upheld, the provisions of statutory rules having been ignored; (ii) The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority failed to apply their mind; (iii) The order of punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges and (iv) The enquiry was conducted behind the back of the appellant and no subsistence allowance was paid, while the appellant was under suspension. 6. In support of the first point, it was submitted that the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, as he was never noticed in regard to the date, fixed for examination of the witness Kapildeo Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector. While submitting that the witness was examined behind the back of the appellant, learned Counsel has referred the statements, made in paragraph Nos. 10, 24 and 25 of the writ petition and the memo of appeal. 7. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact, as stated by the respondents and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report. 10, 24 and 25 of the writ petition and the memo of appeal. 7. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact, as stated by the respondents and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report. It will be evident that the enquiry officer received the file relating to the proceeding on 19 th January, 2001 and noticed that the appellant was asked to show cause vide Memo No. 4839 dated 24 th November, 2000. Inspite of the same, the appellant did not choose to file show cause reply nor denied the charges. Thereafter, the enquiry officer issued Memo No. 217 dated 23rd January, 2001, Memo No. 299 dated 1 st February, 2001 and Memo No. 1005 dated 6 th March, 2001, asking the appellant to appear in the enquiry but he failed to appear in the enquiry on 15 th February, 2001 and 15 th March, 2001. Inspite of repeated notices, fixing the dates of enquiry, the appellant having failed to appear, the enquiry officer had no other option but to take exparte evidence of Kapildeo Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, the sole prosecution witness. It further appears that even notices were issued vide Memo No. 212/01 dated 25 th April, 2001, Memo No. 286/01 dated 6 th May, 2001 and the appellant was asked to file show cause reply, but he did not choose to appear. The enquiry officer, thereafter, tried to find out from the Police Center the permanent address of the appellant, as is evident from the enquiry report dated 8 th June, 2001, and sent the registered notice at his permanent home address by Memo No. 354/01 dated 22 nd May, 2001 and registered letter No. 1973 dated 24 th May, 2001 but the postal peon Anil Prasad Singh reported that the wife of the appellant informed him that the appellant had left the house. Thereafter, step was taken through the Police Center, Dhanbad, to notice the appellant, on which the Day Officer, Dangal Bodra, submitted written report that the appellant was absconding and had not reported even till 6 th June, 2001. The appellant has not denied the aforesaid facts either in the writ petition or in the memo of appeal and no statement has been made with regard to the citations, relating to service of notices, as made by the enquiry officer. The appellant has not denied the aforesaid facts either in the writ petition or in the memo of appeal and no statement has been made with regard to the citations, relating to service of notices, as made by the enquiry officer. In such a situation, it will be presumed that the appellant has accepted the statements, made by the enquiry officer, relating to service of notice and, thus, a vague statement that no notice was given to him, cannot be accepted. The statements, made at paragraph Nos. 22 and 24 of the writ petition and the memo of appeal, are stated to be true to the information, derived from records, but the records speak otherwise that the notices were issued and served but the appellant failed to appear and his family member refused to accept the notice in his absence. The allegation that the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority has not applied its mind, can not be accepted in view of the detailed order, passed by them and the enquiry report being very specific. The 2 nd point, as raised on behalf of the appellant, is answered accordingly against the appellant. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the absence was for a period of few days and thereby, the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. From the charge-sheet it will be evident that the appellant was absent from duty since 1 st November, 2000 till the date of issuance of charge-sheet i.e. 24 th November, 2000. From the enquiry report it will be further evident that even thereafter, the appellant was absent and during the suspension he was not at the headquarters nor was present at the permanent home address and till the enquiry report was submitted i.e. 8 th June, 2001, he was not present and was absent. The 2 nd show cause notice was first issued vide Memo No. 4294 dated 2 nd July, 2001. By that day also the appellant was not present in the headquarter. It followed by another second show cause notice, issued second time vide Memo No. 1825 dated 9 th May, 2003. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant, in the meantime, reported the headquarter during the period of suspension, as it was noticed that even during the period of suspension, he was not present at the headquarter and was absconding. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the appellant, in the meantime, reported the headquarter during the period of suspension, as it was noticed that even during the period of suspension, he was not present at the headquarter and was absconding. Thus, it is clear that the appellant was absent for much more than the period, mentioned in the charge-sheet, which may be more than two years. Therefore, the punishment cannot be held to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. 9. While raising the aforesaid question, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual Vol.-l, wherein, it is stipulated that the disciplinary authority should also bear in mind that the previous record of service of the officer concerned, if not already included In the charge of proceeding, shall not be taken into account for determining the quantum of punishment. It was submitted that past record of service was not only taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, for inflicting major punishment of dismissal from service but such past service record has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge, which was not permissible. 10. The learned Single Judge has noticed that the following punishment was imposed on the appellant and the fact that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty for seventeen times. 1. By District Order No. 1493/82 he was punished for absence of 82 days; 2. By District Order No. 107/88 he was punished by stopping seven days payment; 3. By District Order No. 1093/85 he was punished by stopping for three days payment; 4. By District Order No. 804/87 he was punished by a black mark; 5. By District Order No. 677/88 he was punished by stopping one year increment; 6. By District Order No. 485/89 he was punished by stopping one year increment; 7. By District Order No. 2559/96 he was punished by stopping two years increment; 8. By District Order No. 827/96 he was punished by stopping six months increment; 9. By District Order No. 2488/89 he was punished by stopping one year increment; 10. By District Order No. 2976/78 he was punished for absence of 86 days; 12. By District Order No. 3492/2000 he was punished for absence of three days by stopping three days payment; 13. By District Order No. 2488/89 he was punished by stopping one year increment; 10. By District Order No. 2976/78 he was punished for absence of 86 days; 12. By District Order No. 3492/2000 he was punished for absence of three days by stopping three days payment; 13. By District Order No. 3496/2000 he was punished for absence of six days by stopping six days payment; 14. By District Order No. 1795/2002 he was punished for absence of nine days by stopping nine days payment; 15. By District Order No. 1795/2002 he was punished for absence of 25 days by stopping 25 days payment; 16. By District Order No. 1796/2002 he was punished for absence of 53 days by stopping 53 days payment; 17. By District Order No. 1798/2002 he was punished for absence of 50 days by stopping 50 days payment. 11. From the charge-sheet it will be evident that while the disciplinary authority alleged that the appellant was absconding since 1st November, 2000, without notice and prior permission, has mentioned that he is habitual absconder, effect of which also falls on other police personnel. The habit, as referred in the charge sheet, reflects the past service of the appellant. Such reference having already been made in the charge sheet, it cannot be alleged that the order of punishment was against Rule 826 of the Bihar Police Manual, Vol.-1, nor the order of punishment can be held to be disproportionate. This issue is also decided against the appellant. 12. So far as subsistence allowance is concerned, it can not be alleged that the respondents have not paid subsistence allowance to the appellant. From the enquiry report it will be evident that the petitioner was absconding since 1 st November, 2000 and while he was under suspension and during enquiry, he was not even present in the headquarter nor attended the enquiry. He was also not available at his permanent address, as reported by his wife to the postal peon. Thus, there was no occasion for the State to pay the subsistence allowance nor the appellant was entitled for such allowance, having not remained present at the headquarter during the period of suspension. The appellant, therefore, cannot take advantage of his absence from the headquarter during the period of suspension in challenging the departmental proceeding. 13. Thus, there was no occasion for the State to pay the subsistence allowance nor the appellant was entitled for such allowance, having not remained present at the headquarter during the period of suspension. The appellant, therefore, cannot take advantage of his absence from the headquarter during the period of suspension in challenging the departmental proceeding. 13. We find no ground to be made out to interfere with the order of dismissal nor any ground has been made out to interfere with the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. There being no merit, this appeal is hereby dismissed.