ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged order dated 19.10.2005 and 4.3.2008 passed by the Disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority respectively and to declare that the departmental proceedings initiated by the respondent bank against the petitioner is illegal and unjust. The brief facts are as under: The petitioner was appointed as a part time Safai Karmachari with the respondent bank at Gulbaitekra Branch of Central Bank of India from 1982. Accordingly to the petitioner, since he had fallen sick he did not attend the duties. Therefore in the year the respondent issued a chargesheet and thereafter imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect. Thereafter again the petitioner did not attend duties and therefore another chargesheet was issued on 8th May 2004 for the misconduct of remaining absence for 216 days from service. Departmental proceedings were initiated and Inquiry Report was submitted on 9th august 2005. ultimately the petitioner was discharged from service with superannuation benefits by order dated 19th October 2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate committee which came to be dismissed. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was suffering from paralytic attack and therefore he was unable to attend duties and medical certificates were produced before the bank, which were not considered by the bank. According to him the reasons recorded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are contrary to the facts of the present case. He therefore submitted that the impugned orders require to be quashed and set aside. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has remained on unauthorised leave for a very long period. The impugned order of discharge was passed after following proper procedure and giving all opportunities to the petitioner. The Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority have held the charge against the petitioner as âSProvedâý. There was no denial of the factum of unauthorized leave. It was found that in the past also the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent for 316 days on different dates during the period from 29.12.2001 to 31.12.2002 and again for 216 days on different days on different dates during the period 18.6.2003 to 8.5.2004. departmental inquiries were initiated and petitioner was awarded punishment on both the times. It was found that in the past also the petitioner had remained unauthorizedly absent for 316 days on different dates during the period from 29.12.2001 to 31.12.2002 and again for 216 days on different days on different dates during the period 18.6.2003 to 8.5.2004. departmental inquiries were initiated and petitioner was awarded punishment on both the times. The petitioner was given opportunity for four times to remain present in the inquiry but he did not choose to remain present in the inquiry. Therefore the respondent authority has found that the petitioner is habitual in remaining unauthorized absent. It is by now well settled that unauthorised habitual absence from duty is sufficient ground to discharge from service. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the authority and the petition therefore deserves to be dismissed. In the premises aforesaid this petition is summarily dismissed.