JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner entered the Police Department as a constable and he came to be appointed in the year 1986. In the year 1993 a departmental enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner because he did not report back to the force after expiry of 10 days casual leave which was granted on 27.8.93. Charges were drawn up in terms of Annexure-1. It also indicates that the petitioner had indulged in similar kind of misdemeanor in the past for which certain punishments came to be awarded upon him. But those punishments have had no sobering effect on the petitioner. Enquiry was held, finding is there of the petitioners overstayal without any authorization, the disciplinary authority issued him a second show cause asking him to respond within fifteen days but the record shows that he chose not to respond to the said show cause despite the notice being personally received by him. 3. After taking into consideration the unauthorized leave of absence coupled with the fact that in the past also there are instances of his not returning to the force for long periods after leave as also the finding in the enquiry from his service record it was opined that his continuance was detrimental to the discipline of the force. The disciplinary authority came to an opinion that the petitioner was not fit to remain in service of the Police Department. The punishment of dismissal came to be passed which js Annexure-4 to the writ application. For similar reason the appeal and memorial contained in Annexures-5 and 7 came to be rejected. Thereafter the present writ application. 4. One of the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the authority disbelieved his explanation or defence that he and his wife had to undergo major medical treatment the authority ought to have summoned the doctor for examination. He had valid reasons not to report back after the casual leave period expired and the authority have ignored such a defence. 5. Such a submission has been made on the basis of the explanation filed before the Superintendent of Police as would be evident from Annexure-3. 6. From a reading of his show cause it is not evident that the petitioner made any prayer to examine the said doctor in his defence. 5. Such a submission has been made on the basis of the explanation filed before the Superintendent of Police as would be evident from Annexure-3. 6. From a reading of his show cause it is not evident that the petitioner made any prayer to examine the said doctor in his defence. It was for the petitioner to put up his defence with regard to absence and was not for the enquiry officer to summon witness in favour of the petitioner, who would have supported his defence. 7. The stand of the State is that in the enquiry the petitioner was given fullest opportunity but the so-called explanation seems to be an afterthought because at no point of time any information was given to the authority with regard to his illness or his wifes illness and his inability to report back within a reasonable time frame or for extension of his leave for those reasons. Obviously the evidence put up by petitioner was only a lame excuse without there being any substantive supporting material in this regard. 8. If the aberration of the petitioner was first of its kind then may be there would have been an occasion for this Court to direct the respondents to take a lenient view on the quantum of punishment but a person serving the Police Department having a history of similar kinds of misdemeanor compels this Court not to interfere with the order of punishment. In fact, if the punishment of dismissal has come to be imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner is to be squarely blamed for the same because the earlier indulgence in the past has had no effect on him on the question of discipline. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner however before parting submits that the petitioner was not paid his subsistence allowance for the period he was kept under suspension during the departmental proceeding. There is no indication in the counter affidavit on that issue. That is a matter which requires verification from record and if the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, the authority may work out the same and take steps of payment, if there is no other legal impediment as such. 10. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed except on the question of subsistence allowance.