JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. 1. There are many a reliefs which has been sought for in the present writ application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The primary relief is quashing of the order of dismissal dated 17th November, 1996 contained in Annexure-11. Consequential thereto the petitioner also wants reinstatement in service with all back wages from August, 1982 till date, payment of salary for the period of suspension from 1995 till the present date. He also wants a direction for promotion to the post of ASI based on his seniority, if reinstated and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a temporary constable on 7.5.1973. On completion of his training he was posted in the district of Aurangabad. In 1981 he served as a Munsi i.e. literate constable and came to be transferred to the district of Nawadah. In 1982 petitioner was serving in the District Crime Branch and from February 1982 to 11.7.1982 he was on deputation from reserved office and worked in the confidential section of Nawadah. 3. It is his case that some time in the middle of 1982 he was taken ill. When his illness became serious he made a prayer for leave but since no leave was granted he decided to take care of himself by obtaining treatment at home and he left for his house at Biharshsrif. In support thereof he has brought on record the prescriptions of two doctors, namely, Dr. B.N. Singh and Dr. M.M. Rahman. 4. After recovery when he reported back to join his post on 16.9.82 he was not allowed to join. He was informed by the Incharge of the District Crime Branch Office that the order of his deputation to the said office stood cancelled and he should report to the reserve office. He reported to the reserve office but nobody took heed of his presence there. It is his case that he continued to report to the reserve office but no cognizance of his presence was taken. Later on he learnt that he has been put under suspension by the respondents. A departmental enquiry was initiated with a set of charges contained in Annexure-3 was issued. 5. The primary charge against the petitioner is that he was an absconder and had been missing from 18.7.82 to 15.9.82 without any permission of the competent authority. Later on he learnt that he has been put under suspension by the respondents. A departmental enquiry was initiated with a set of charges contained in Annexure-3 was issued. 5. The primary charge against the petitioner is that he was an absconder and had been missing from 18.7.82 to 15.9.82 without any permission of the competent authority. When he came back and reported on 19.9.82 in the police line the Sergeant Major asked him to report on 6.10.82 in the reserve office. The petitioner instead of report again absconded. It is also reflected in the charge that the petitioner was a habitual absconder for which punishment has come to be imposed upon him in the past as well. 6. Earlier when the order of punishment was imposed upon the petitioner he filed CWJC No. 5391 of 1990. The order of dismissal came to be interfered with on a technical ground and the punishment order was quashed with a direction upon the respondents that future action against the petitioner would be dependent upon the culmination of the proceeding and the findings which may come to be recorded afresh. It is in this background that the matter was re-examined by the disciplinary authority and a fresh order dated 17th November, 1996 came to be passed, which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application. 7. From a reading of the order passed by the disciplinary authority it is evident that the basic charge against the petitioner of absconding from duty without any authority has been found to be established. Though his past service and the punishments were not a subject matter of the charge, but it cannot be said that the service record of the petitioner could not be looked into by the authority despite there being repeated acts of indiscipline, of similar kind. 8. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that keeping in mind the nature of responsibility of the petitioner, his act of misconduct of having deserted the force and having absconded without any leave was duly established and if what has emerged from the record is taken into consideration, then it seems that the petitioner is not made out and cut out for the post of constable belonging to a disciplined force. The material which had come against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding had been taken note of not only in the counter affidavit but even in the punishment order. How much leeway can be given to a person of the kind is also an issue to be considered by this Court of law. 9. The question of discipline is more concern of the employer and the superior authority under whom an employee works. They are best Judge as to the conduct of the delinquent and their utility and retention in service based on the finding of misconduct which came to be established against the petitioner. It cannot be said that merely because the petitioner was absent for a couple of months, a more lenient view ought to have been taken in the matter of awarding of punishment. The Court could have considered this aspect of the matter provided the misconduct of the petitioner was first aberration of its kind. Obviously the disciplinary authority had to take the totality of the facts into consideration, coupled with the findings against the petitioner that he was in the habit of absconding without leave and the punishments imposed in the past has had no sobering effect. A person serving the police force does not have the luxury of leaving the office when it suited him and report back when convenient to him. The various so-called objections raised against the proceeding is a misplaced kind of objection based more as an afterthought then actual state of affairs. 10. Based on the direction of the High Court earlier the enquiry was remarried out. Petitioner had been given fullest opportunity to defend himself but since the finding was against him, the punishment order which came to be passed against him is the outcome of his own conduct and indiscretion which does not require reconsideration on any of the grounds urged by him. 11. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed but without cost.