Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. The petitioner, who was a Copyist under the Additional District Subordinate Judge, District Court, Karaikal, has preferred this writ petition against the proceedings No.7/C/ADSJ/KKL/98 dated 3. 1998 issued by the first respondent, by which he was removed from service, pursuant to a departmental proceedings. He has also challenged the appellate order in proceedings No.3177/JD/A/99 dated 10. 1999 passed by the second respondent. As the case could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the points except the relevant one. 2. The petitioner, while in service, was proceeded by three different departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence from duty; attending office in a drunken state; keeping many copy applications pending without complying the same; missed some of the copy applications and kept some of them in damaged condition; scolded the staff members in filthy language etc. 3. The following charges were levelled against the petitioner. (i) The charges framed under the proceedings No.178/Estt./ADSJ/KKL/96 dated 23. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Proceedings No.1) reads as under: Charge No.1: The writ petitioner unauthorisedly absented himself from duty on 110. 1995 and 110. 1995 without submitting any leave application. Charge No.2: The writ petitioner kept many copy applications pending without complying the same, missed some of the copy applications and kept some of them in a badly damaged condition. Charge No.3: The writ petitioner was in the habit of attending office daily in a drunken state despite warnings many times. (ii) The charges framed under the proceedings No.179/Estt./ASDJ/KKL/96 dated 23. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Proceedings No.2) are as under: Charge No.1: The writ petitioner did not turn up for duty on 20.2.1996, 22. 1996, 22. 1996 and on the afternoon of 3. 1996, 3. 1996 and on the whole day of 3. 1996 and 3. 1996 without submitting leave applications. Charge No.2: The writ petitioner did not submit any explanation to the Memorandum No.144/Estt./ADSJ/KKL/96 dated 13. 1996 issued to him within the stipulated date, i.e. on or before 13. 1996. (iii) The charges framed under the proceedings No.199/Estt./ASDJ/KKL/96 dated 4. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Proceedings No.3) are as under: Charge No.1: The writ petitioner came to the office in a drunken state on 13. 1996 and scolded the members of staff in filthy language. 1996 issued to him within the stipulated date, i.e. on or before 13. 1996. (iii) The charges framed under the proceedings No.199/Estt./ASDJ/KKL/96 dated 4. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Disciplinary Proceedings No.3) are as under: Charge No.1: The writ petitioner came to the office in a drunken state on 13. 1996 and scolded the members of staff in filthy language. Charge No.2: The writ petitioner was sent for medical examination as to his drunken state and while being taken to the hospital, he escaped from the custody of office Peons, T. Manoharan and G. Elangovan and absented himself from duty unauthorisedly from the afternoon of 13. 1996 onwards. Charge No.3: The writ petitioner left the headquarters of Karaikal during the period of suspension, without prior permission. 4. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry with regard to all the charges in three departmental proceedings. The petitioner participated in those proceedings, but did not choose to examine the witnesses on his side in any of the departmental proceedings. 5. The following witnesses were examined and exhibits were produced during the departmental enquiries: 6. The enquiry officer, after conclusion of the enquiry in the three departmental proceedings, held that the second charge of the first departmental proceedings, first charge of the second departmental proceedings and second charge of the third departmental proceedings were proved. After notice and supply of the copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service, which was affirmed by the appellate authority. 7. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the proved charges are not grave in nature so as to inflict on him the punishment of removal from service and in any event, the punishment imposed on him is not proportionate to the proved charges. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 9. From the facts noticed above, it would be evident that the petitioner was given an opportunity to take part in all the three departmental proceedings. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 9. From the facts noticed above, it would be evident that the petitioner was given an opportunity to take part in all the three departmental proceedings. The proved charges of keeping many of the copy applications pending without complying the same, missing some of the copy applications and keeping some of them in bad damaged condition (charge No.2 of the first departmental proceedings) and when the petitioner was sent for medical examination as to his drunken state, he escaped from the custody of the office peons and absented from duty unauthorisedly from the afternoon of 13. 1996 onwards (charge No.2 of the third departmental proceedings) are being grave in nature and his job being that of a copyist of the Civil Court, we are of the view that the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the gravity of the charges and thereby call for no interference. Finding no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.