JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh & J.N. Singh, JJ. The present appeal is against an order dismissing a writ petition whereby an order passed upon conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding was assailed. The reason for initiation of the disciplinary proceeding was unauthorized absence of the appellant. It was alleged that the appellant remained absent from 16th May, 1996 until 6th December, 1996, despite by a public notice dated 10th October, 1996 he was directed to join his duties. In defence, it was the contention of the appellant that he was waiting for his salary advance and transfer T.A. until he fell ill. He contended that on 30th September, 1996, he submitted an application for leave on Medical ground. He further contended that he became fit for duty on 1st December, 1996 after recovering from his illness and a certificate to that effect was accorded on 2nd December, 1996. The Enquiry Officer accepted such contention of the appellant. The Enquiry Officer, accordingly, had to report that there is no explanation on the part of the appellant why he did not join either on the 2nd or on the 3rd or on the 4th or on the 5th of December, 1996 despite having had become fit for duty on 1st December, 1996. On the basis of the findings recorded in the said Enquiry Report, the punishment order, as was impugned in the writ petition, was passed, whereby Censure was directed to be recorded in the character role of the appellant for the year 1996-1997, with stoppage of one increment with accumulative effect. In the writ petition, placing reliance upon a different Enquiry Report in relation to a different person, it was contended that though the Enquiry Officer has absolved the appellant from the charges levelled against him, still he has been punished. In the counter affidavit, the Enquiry Report of the Enquiry Officer appointed to enquire the charges against the appellant had been annexed. In view of the said Enquiry Report, the principal contention in the writ petition fell flat. However, it was contended that there was no just reason for awarding punishment for unexplained unauthorized absence for about four days. The learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, felt that a reading of the Enquiry Report would demonstrate that the defence put forward by the appellant to the charges had not been accepted by the Enquiry Officer. However, it was contended that there was no just reason for awarding punishment for unexplained unauthorized absence for about four days. The learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, felt that a reading of the Enquiry Report would demonstrate that the defence put forward by the appellant to the charges had not been accepted by the Enquiry Officer. We, however, feel upon reading the Enquiry Report that the defence put forward i.e., the explanations given for the absence, had been accepted by the Enquiry Officer in toto. Since there was no explanation for absence on 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th December, 1996, the Enquiry Officer has merely pointed out the same in the Enquiry Report. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Enquiry Report was not served upon the appellant before the order punishing the appellant had been passed. When the Enquiry Report was brought on record, the appellant got an opportunity to file an affidavit disclosing what prejudice did he suffer for non-service of the Enquiry Report before the final order in the disciplinary proceeding was passed and though, the appellant utilized such opportunity by filing a rejoinder to the counter affidavit, he did not make any effort to highlight any such prejudice. Even in the present appeal, no such effort has been made. It is not the case of the appellant that if the Enquiry Report had been served upon him prior to passing of the final order, he could point out, by referring to evidence on record that he had also explained his absence from duty on 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th of December, 1996. In such a situation, in view of the constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Vrs. B. Karunakar, reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1074, the Writ Court has nothing further to do. Inasmuch as the appellant did not think it necessary to explain his absence for four consecutive days, despite having had been charged in a disciplinary proceeding for such an unauthorized absence, one can surely conclude that the appellant was too casual about making him present at his work place on working days. Inasmuch as the appellant did not think it necessary to explain his absence for four consecutive days, despite having had been charged in a disciplinary proceeding for such an unauthorized absence, one can surely conclude that the appellant was too casual about making him present at his work place on working days. In the event, disciplinary authority thinks such an employee should be disciplined and for that matter imposes punishment, as was imposed in the instant case, a Court of equity has hardly any scope of interference. For the reasons as above, we refuse to interfere with the Judgment and Order under appeal and accordingly, dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.