Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as driver on 21.7.1980. In the year 1984, the petitioner applied for leave due to his family problem and health ground. 2. The Leave was not granted and on account of absence of the petitioner, he was served with a charge memo on 27.6.1985, alleging misconduct of unauthorizedly absent for 278 days. 3. The petitioner in his explanation, denied the allegation. Being dissatisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted enquiry and held the petitioner guilty of the charges of unauthorized absence. 4. The competent authority agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of termination of service. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the enquiry was not conducted as per the Rules as the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend. It is also contended that it is only in case of absence of more than one year that departmental action can be taken, and not in case absence is less than a year. 7. The petitioner was admittedly absent for only 278 days, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained being against statutory provisions of Law. 8. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Except for the vague allegations that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules, no material has been placed on record to substantiate this contention. On a perusal of the proceedings I find that enquiry was held in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, wherein the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. 9. It cannot also be said that a temporary employee, who had put in four years of service cannot be punished merely because the absence is less than one year, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Unauthorized absence from duty is a misconduct, whereas long absence for 278 days is a serious misconduct, for which, the penalty of termination of service, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct, which may call for interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. No costs.