Order The present writ petition has been preferred against the order of dismissal, passed by the respondents at Annexure-9 to the memo of petition dated 30.5.1998. After getting this termination letter, which is of the year 1998, a petition has been preferred in February, 2009. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has remained absent for some period, and only because of this absence, the services of the present petitioner has been terminated without appreciating the reasons of the absence that is because of the family circumstance of the present petitioner. Thus, the quantum of the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the nature of the misconduct, and therefore, the order at Annexure-9 deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the charges levelled against the present petitioner has not been proved, and this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the respondents, and therefore, also the order of termination of the service of the present petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has remained absent unauthorizedly without getting sanction for any leave with effect from 21.10.1994 onwards, and thereafter again the petitioner was given a warning letter dated 22.5.1995 for resuming duties within one week, but the petitioner deliberately came after one month for joining his duties and that too on the ground that the petitioner did not get railway reservation, and therefore, he had not resumed his duties. On the earlier occasion, the reasons advanced for long absentism of more than six months is a family circumstance, but nothing is stated as to what were those family circumstance, and therefore, charge-sheet was issued and an inquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity of being heard in the present case. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, it has been concluded that the charges levelled against the present petitioner has been proved and the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of termination of the services of the present petitioner vide order dated 30.5.1998 at Annexure-9 to the memo of petition. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is a gross delay in preferring this writ petition of approximately 11 (eleven) years. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is a gross delay in preferring this writ petition of approximately 11 (eleven) years. No reasonable reason has been stated in the memo of petition for explaining this delay of approximately eleven years in filing of this petition. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The petitioner had taken leave from 14.9.1994 to 20.10.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner was to resume the duty on 21.10.1994, but thereafter the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly. (ii) It further appears that the present petitioner remained absent for several months and for which no reason or explanation was given by the writ petitioner, therefore, the warning letter dated 22.5.1995 was issued, wherein it was stated by the respondents that if the petitioner wants to join the duty, may join the duty within a period of one week. (iii) It further appears that the petitioner for no justifiable reasons, again did not resume duties within one week, and the petitioner had gone to resume duties leisurely after one month i.e. on 28.6.1995, which was not allowed by the respondents. (iv) Reasons advanced for long absentism, is that family circumstance was not favourable. This is no reason in the eye of law. Nothing has been stated that what were those family circumstances. No detail of those circumstances or any proof of those circumstances have been given to the respondents by the petitioner. During the course of argument it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner had expired. When this Court raised the query that on which date the father of the petitioner expired, the counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out from any where in the memo of petition about the death of the father of the petitioner. The reason given for non-joining within one month from the warning letter is also not reasonable, because it says that the petitioner could not obtain the railway reservation, which is no reason for remaining absent. (v) Looking to the Enquiry Report, it appears that adequate opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner. The reason given for non-joining within one month from the warning letter is also not reasonable, because it says that the petitioner could not obtain the railway reservation, which is no reason for remaining absent. (v) Looking to the Enquiry Report, it appears that adequate opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioner. The charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Looking to the evidence on the record, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Report is based upon no evidence. On the contrary, the Einquiry Report is passed upon proper evaluation of evidence, which is placed on record. The absentism was absolutely unauthorized. Even after the warning letter, the petitioner has failed to resume his duties. (vi) It further appears that thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of termination of the services of the petitioner vide Order dated 30.5.1998 at Annexure-9. Looking to this letter also, adequate reasoning has been given and looking to the nature of misconduct of those long absentism, it cannot be said that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. (vii) It further appears that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner is dated 30.5.1998. The petition is filed on 1st February, 2009. There is no plausible explanation for delay of approximately 11 (eleven) years. The petitioner is unable to explain this delay in filing this writ petition. 5. As a cumulative effect of aforesaid facts and reasons, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. No error has been committed by the respondents in terminating the services of the present petitioner. There is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.