MUKUL MUDGAL,J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE order of the respondents dated 25th February, 2002 removing the petitioner from the service was challenged before the CAT leading to the impugned judgment dated 20th January, 2003. The facts of the case are as follows:- ( 3 ) THE petitioner joined as Khallasi on 26. 5. 1976. The petitioner was awarded certain promotions within the department. At the relevant time, after the Stream Loco Shed was wound up, the petitioner was given the w. P. (C) 2061/2004 page 1 of 3 job of Pointsman. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet firstly for minor penalty, which was later withdrawn and another charge-sheet for major penalty was served on 1. 12. 2000. It pertains to his unauthorised absence from duty. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was charged for being absent from 10. 10. 2000 to 24. 11. 2000. Based on enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority rejected the petitioner s appeal leading to a revision petition before the Divisional Railway manager, Izatnagar who while upholding the removal from service. The Revisional authority after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner recorded the following findings:-"on 24. 5. 2002 he was given an opportunity of personal hearing in which he gave illness of his wife as a reason for absence. He also told that his wife was ill at Hathras and this is the case of the year 1992. There does not appear to be any link of this absence with that case. In his appeal he has not given any new facts, and has only raised objections against the Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary Authority. All the points raised by him have been seen and it was found that there is no infirmity in the inquiry as well as order of the disciplinary Authority on account of which the proceeding be rejected. None of his arguments is worth acceptance. His past record was called with a view to see if any improvement is there in his attendance to consider the appeal sympathetically but it was found that from 1. 1. 2000 to 31. 12. 2001 the applicant was on leave/sick/absence for 476 days besides even after the issue of chargesheet there is not improvement in his attendance. His past record was called with a view to see if any improvement is there in his attendance to consider the appeal sympathetically but it was found that from 1. 1. 2000 to 31. 12. 2001 the applicant was on leave/sick/absence for 476 days besides even after the issue of chargesheet there is not improvement in his attendance. W. P. (C) 2061/2004 page 2 of 3 there is period of too long absence after 10. 10. 2000 to 24. 10. 2000 i. e. From 27. 3. 2000 to 8. 7. 2000 103 days and from 12. 8. 2001 to 29. 12. 2001 ? 139 days. It is clear that the position of attendance has worsened and therefore it is not possible to consider the appeal even on compassionate grounds. It is clear that the employee is not serious in his duties. " ( 5 ) THE Revisional Authority has given adequate reasons fully concurring with the reasons recorded by the Appellate and Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner s conduct and past conduct were relevant factors in considering his revision petition. It has been found that the petitioner has been absent for 476 days from the period 1. 1. 2000 to 31. 12. 2001 and had been absent even after the charge sheet had been served upon him. Thus the petitioner s conduct displays the callous disregard to the duties as a Railway servant. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere in the order of the CAT upholding the Revisional authority s order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and stands disposed of. .