JUDGMENT : Amareshwar Sahay, J.-Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner joined service of the respondent no. 2-Bokaro Steel Plant under Steel Authority of India Ltd. on 7.12.1977. He is challenging the order of his dismissal from the service as contained in Annexure-3 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority on 22.10.2001, contained in Annexure-9/1, dismissing his appeal against the order of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority. 3. The relevant facts in short is that the petitioner was served with a chargesheet contained in Annexures-1 and 1/A asking him to submit his reply to the allegations against him that he was in habit of absenting unauthorisedly from the duty quite often. A chart containing the number of days he absented in between July, 1997 to February, 1998 was annexed with the charge-sheet. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated and on conclusion of the departmental inquiry, a report was submitted by the inquiry officer holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner stood proved. The finding of the inquiry officer was that the petitioner, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity to defend, his case, he appeared on two dates only and, thereafter, did not appear in the proceeding and, thereby failed to explain why he remained absent unauthorisedly for the period he was charge-sheeted. 4. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of facts, as well as the inquiry report, passed an order (Annexure-3) for dismissal of the petitioner from his service and he was directed to vacate the company's quarter which he was occupying. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Manager. Since the petitioner was being pressurized to vacate the quarter and as such, he filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3025 of 2001 challenging the order of his dismissal from service as also the notice of vacation of the quarter. 5. By order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the said Writ Petition (S) No. 3025 of 2001 was disposed of considering the fact that the petitioner had already preferred appeal against the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and, therefore, direction was given to the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner within three months. Thereafter, the appellate authority, by order as, contained in Annexure-9/1, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by a reasoned order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Thereafter, the appellate authority, by order as, contained in Annexure-9/1, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by a reasoned order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Dr. H. Waris, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Committee was constituted on 17.7.1997 i.e. seven months prior to furnishing of charge-sheet, whereas the allegation against the petitioner was that he unauthorisedly absented from duties for 69 days in between July, 1997 to February, 1998. This clearly goes to show that the disciplinary authority did not apply his mind prior to passing of dismissal order because the inquiry was to be made into an allegation which was alleged to have been committed after the constitution of the inquiry committee. Therefore, the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority is bad in law. It was also submitted that whenever the petitioner absented from his duty, he duly informed his superiors with reasons for the same. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that for absenting unauthorisedly for a period of 69 days, the petitioner has been dismissed from service which is disproportionate to the charge leveled against him. 7. By filing a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was also inflicted major and minor punishments in the past prior to passing of the impugned order of dismissal on three occasions i.e. on 27.8.1990, 28.1.1992 and 20.4.1995. When the petitioner absented from duties in between July, 1997 to February, 1998, then chargesheet was submitted vide order dated 2.3.1998 (Annexure-1). The petitioner though appeared before the Inquiry Committee on two dates but, thereafter, left appearing in the departmental proceedings and, ultimately, the inquiry officer had to submit his report. 8. On perusal of the' impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate order by the Managing Director (Annexure-9/1), it appears that both the authorities, after consideration of facts and relevant records as well as the personal file of the petitioner, have found that the petitioner was served with charge-sheet on 2.3.1998 based on the report submitted by the officials of Traffic where the petitioner was working. It was also held that the Inquiry Committee was constituted on 17.7.1998 against chargesheet dated 2/3.3.1998 and not on 17.7.1997. 9. It was also held that the Inquiry Committee was constituted on 17.7.1998 against chargesheet dated 2/3.3.1998 and not on 17.7.1997. 9. On perusal of the aforesaid two orders, I find that the petitioner was provided ample opportunity to defend himself but he failed because he stopped appearing in the enquiry proceeding. It is apparent from the inquiry report that as against 14 sittings held by the Inquiry Committee, the petitioner participated/attended only in three of the sittings. He did not produce any evidence to rebut charge leveled against him and ultimately the petitioner was found guilty for the charge. 10. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed against the petitioner. The punishment awarded to the petitioner also cannot be said to be disproportionate since the petitioner was awarded punishments in the past also for unauthorisedly absenting from duty and, therefore, he appears to be a habitual absentee unauthorizedly. 11. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.