Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.607 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") is now Writ Petition in W.P.No.5701 of 2007 before this Court. 2. Heard Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnu Priya learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Grade-II Police Constable on 16.03.1994. He was unauthorisedly absent from 24.01.2000 for 21 days and therefore a desertion order dated 18.02.2000 was issued by the third respondent. While issuing the desertion order, the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain the reason for his unauthorised absence, within 60 days. Since the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, a second charge memo dated 15.05.2000 was issued under Rule 3 (b) of Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1955 alleging that the petitioner without informing to anybody or without getting prior permission unauthorisedly absented from 24.01.2001 for more than 21 days. He submitted an explanation dated 21.06.2000 stating that he was suffering from Virus (Ammai) from 24.01.2000, therefore, he was not able to attend the duty. Further, not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry two witnesses were examined and Document Nos.1 to 4 were marked as exhibits. The petitioner did not let it any evidence on his side. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report dated 28.06.2001, finding him guilty of the charges. Based on the said report, the third respondent issued an order dated 24.07.2000 removing the petitioner from service. Thereafter, he filed an appeal to the second respondent and the same was dismissed by an order dated 04.01.2001. Aggrieved by that, he filed a revision to the first respondent and the said revision was also dismissed by the first respondent in the order dated 26.04.2001. 4. The petitioner filed O.A.607 of 2002 (W.P.No.5701 of 2007) to quash the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2000 of the third respondent, 04.01.2001 of the second respondent and 26.04.2001 of the first respondent. 5. Based on an order passed by this Court on 20.08.2009 to produce the entire enquiry records, the same was produced by the respondents. 6. I have perused the entire materials available on record. 7. 5. Based on an order passed by this Court on 20.08.2009 to produce the entire enquiry records, the same was produced by the respondents. 6. I have perused the entire materials available on record. 7. The third respondent has also addressed a letter dated 22.08.2009 to the Government Advocate seeking to sustain the removal order and gave the details of the past records of the petitioner, wherein he was punished four times for different delinquencies, earlier. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given an opportunity in the departmental enquiry. He participated in the enquiry and in fact, he did not choose to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent, particularly taking in to account that the petitioner failed to produce any Medical Certificate, while he stated that he was not well for the period of the alleged desertion. The third respondent passed the removal order based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The second respondent confirmed the order of the third respondent and the first respondent also rejected the revision upholding the order of the first and second respondents. 8. I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the respondents. Further, the petitioner suffered four punishments in the short span of service of his six years. Thrice, he was imposed with minor penalty for unauthorised absence and once he was imposed a punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect for committing theft of Rs.30/-. The details of the aforesaid four punishments were produced before this court to sustain the dismissal order. 9. It is also submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner was dealt with liniently in the earlier occasions, when he was unauthorisedly absent, but he did not seem to reform himself and he continues to commit the same delinquency. Learned Government Advocate also submits that since the petitioner belongs to the Uniformed Service , the indiscipline could not be tolerated. 10. Taking into account all the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.