JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.S. Kynjing, learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior Govt. advocate for the State Respondents. 2. The writ Petitioner's late husband was appointed as Police Constable on 14th December, 1993 after all due tests and medical examination and since the date of appointment he was discharging his duties with dignity and sincerity. During the period from January 2002, the Petitioner's late husband was not keeping well for which he was unable to attend his duties on many occasions. Similarly, the Petitioner's late husband also remained absent from duty from February 2003 to December 2004 for his alleged ailment without obtaining any leave due permission from his superior authority. It is contended that the Petitioner's late husband's health condition was known to the department but in spite of the fact, he was removed from service with effect from 1.1.2005 vide impugned order No. BO 203 dated. 19.1.2005. It is further contended in the petition that the punishment inflicted upon him is too harsh in comparison to the charges levelled against him. Due to his removal from service, it is contended, his family members are suffering a lot. The Petitioner's further case is that though the department had conducted an enquiry against the Petitioner's late husband, no opportunity was afforded to him to project his case before the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry proceeded with an apparent intention of discharging the Petitioner's husband from service. 3. At the stage, it would be appropriate to state that this writ petition was filed by the Petitioner's late husband initially and during the pendency (of the writ petition, he died and the present writ Petitioner has been impleaded vide order dated 3.3.2006 passed in Misc. Case No. 37(SH) 2006. The Petitioner, Smt. Jenis Lalengzauvi Khenglawt has been impleaded in view of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the petition. Pursuant to the impleadment, the writ petition is not found to have been amended by the writ Petitioner. 4. The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the impugned order dated 19.1.2005 was legally passed by the appropriate authority. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said Respondents, it is noticed that the writ Petitioner's husband was a habitual absentee and for that on four occasions he had been punished by the department. 4. The issue involved in this writ petition is whether the impugned order dated 19.1.2005 was legally passed by the appropriate authority. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said Respondents, it is noticed that the writ Petitioner's husband was a habitual absentee and for that on four occasions he had been punished by the department. The departmental proceeding started against the Petitioner's late husband for unauthorized absence from February 2003 to December 2004. From the impugned order, it is found that the opportunity was afforded to the writ Petitioner's late husband to project his case before the Enquiry Officer and after due enquiry, the writ Petitioner's late husband was removed from service by the impugned order. 5. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned senior GA in support of the contention averred in the affidavit-in-opposition, submits that every formalities required for a departmental proceedings was followed and the claim of the writ Petitioner that no opportunity was afforded him is not find in the face of the record. Before proceeding of the departmental proceeding, a show cause notice was issued on the delinquent in respect of article of charges and he was given an ample opportunity to plea his grievance before the Enquiry Officer. After submission of the enquiry report, he was also served with a second show cause notice requesting the delinquent to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service and the Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration of all the materials including the show cause, thought it fit to remove the writ Petitioner's late husband from service. 6. I have perused the entire materials available on record including the annexures and the impugned order. Having closely scrutinized the facts situation and the article of charges and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, this Court is not of the view that the writ Petitioner's late husband was illegally discharged from service. From his conduct, the department suffered. Continuous absence from duty without taking leave, permission from the appropriate authority would mean and mean dereliction in duty, willful negligence, disobedience, insubordination, etc., etc. An employee who remains continuously absent for long without taking due permission from the appropriate authority cannot virtually remain in service and therefore, the disciplinary authority rightly removed the writ Petitioner's late husband from service. That apart for his conduct, negligence, willful disobedience etc. he was previously punished for four times by the authority. 7. An employee who remains continuously absent for long without taking due permission from the appropriate authority cannot virtually remain in service and therefore, the disciplinary authority rightly removed the writ Petitioner's late husband from service. That apart for his conduct, negligence, willful disobedience etc. he was previously punished for four times by the authority. 7. Having considered all the materials on record, this Court finds no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed