Rakesh Tiwari and Yogesh Chandra Gupta, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity and correctness of the inquiry report dated 6.6.1997 and consequential removal order dated 14.8.1997 passed by the Assistant Engineer, Central Railway Agra, Cant. Agra as well as appellate order dated 12.10.1998 passed by the Senior Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Jhansi which have been appended as Annexure-9, 10, 11 and 13 to this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the fitness certificate dated 28.02.1995 issued by divisional medical Officer, Central Railway Hospital Agra appended as Annexure-8 to the writ petition and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him with entire service benefits. The aforesaid prayers have been made in the back drop that the Central Administration Tribunal Allahabad vide its impugned judgment and order dated 25.2.1999 ( Prem Singh v. Union of India and others) has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner in the O.A. 1192 of 1999 where he had sought the following reliefs: "( i) It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 12.10.1998 and the removal order dated 14.08.1997 passed by the respondent No. 2 and respectively ( Annexure No. A-II to this O.A. ( ii) It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with entire service benefits and or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal was that while packing the sleeper on the railway track he was hit by a stone and was treated initially at Railway Hospital at Agra but subsequently his treatment and his salary was stopped by the department w.e.f. 3.2,1995 without any cause. This compelled him to take treatment in the private hospital. 5. It appears from perusal of the judgment and record that the petitioner had filed case No. 26 of 1995 before the Commissioner ( Workman Compensation) Agra for claiming compensation on the basis of injury which is claimed to have been sustained by him during the course of employment. This compelled him to take treatment in the private hospital. 5. It appears from perusal of the judgment and record that the petitioner had filed case No. 26 of 1995 before the Commissioner ( Workman Compensation) Agra for claiming compensation on the basis of injury which is claimed to have been sustained by him during the course of employment. His claim was allowed by the Commissioner ( Workman Compensation) Agra to the extent of 30 per cent for loss of vision under the said Act, vide order dated 26.3.1997. 6. The petitioner in the aforesaid backgrounds filed O.A. No. 825 of 1995 for a direction to treat the petition in regular service by granting him medical leave and for providing him with light duty. It is stated that from counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid O.A. he came to know that the Chief Medical Superintendent Jhansi had recommended for initiating disciplinary action against the petitioner on the ground that the Chief Medical Officer, Central Railway, Agra had issued fitness certificate to the petitioner on 28.2.1995 and thereafter he was not reporting for duty. 7. Inquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing charge sheet dated 18/20.7.1995 for unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 28.2.1995. He was granted opportunity in the inquiry proceedings but he did not participate therein taking shelter of the plea that the aforesaid O.A. No. 825 of 1995 filed by him was pending before the tribunal. In the circumstances, the inquiry proceeded ex-parte and a report was submitted by the inquiry officer to the disciplinary authority on 6.6.1997. The inquiry report is also challenged on the ground that the applicant was called upon to represent but he could not do so as he had not received the inquiry report in time. The disciplinary authority after consideration of facts in the enquiry report ordered removal of the petitioner from service vide its order dated 14.8.1997. 8. The petitioner claims that he came to know about this fact on 23.3.1998 as he was living with his son at Agra. He then preferred the O.A. No. 1292 of 1998, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 15.12.1998 with a direction to the Senior Divisional Engineer to decide the appeal of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner claims that he came to know about this fact on 23.3.1998 as he was living with his son at Agra. He then preferred the O.A. No. 1292 of 1998, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 15.12.1998 with a direction to the Senior Divisional Engineer to decide the appeal of the petitioner. The authority thereafter decided the appeal of the petitioner which is challenged by him on the following grounds: "( i) Respondents did not follow the procedure laid down under Railway Servants ( D.A.) Rules while passing impugned order. ( ii) Appellate Authority has not dealt with the quantum of punishment whereas the punishment is too excessive. ( iii) Divisional Medical Officer issued the fitness certificate without examining the applicant." 9. Per contra, the stand of the railways before the CAT was that the petitioner had been given fitness certificate on 28.2.1995 by the Chief Medical Officer, Central Railway Hospital at Agra but the petitioner did not report for the duty and remained absent unauthorizedly as such question of payment of salary to him does not arise on the principle of no work no pay. It is stated that the petitioner claims to have got himself admitted for treatment in a civil hospital on 23.2.1995. Even though railways has made all the facilities for treatment of its employees at its Railway Hospitals established by the Central Government. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that during medical examination of the petitioner it was revealed that the eye of the petitioner was defective from his very childhood and that' the petitiner had been given full opportunity in the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner inspitc of the opportunities did not attend the enquiry proceedings having choosed not to defend himself, therefore, he himself is responsible for his sufferance and cannot complain that proper opportunity of hearing or to defend himself was not given to him. The Tribunal further held that the petitioner inspitc of the opportunities did not attend the enquiry proceedings having choosed not to defend himself, therefore, he himself is responsible for his sufferance and cannot complain that proper opportunity of hearing or to defend himself was not given to him. It was also noted by the tribunal that the petitioner in the aforesaid O.A., had sought light duties whereas in the enquiry, charge against him was that of unauthorized from duty as absence after issuance of fitness certificate he was required to be present for duty and if any light duty was required to be done by him, he could have got himself checked up again by the CMO at the Central Railway Hospital at Agra. 11. On a query being made by the Court as to why the petitioner did not report for duty after fitness certificate dated 28.2.1995 was issued by the Chief Medical Officer Railways at Agra ment with no response from the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal that petitioner was malingering after issuance of the fitness certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer Central Railway Hospital at Agra and had absconded thereafter. He was also given full opportunity of hearing in the inquiry as well as in the appeal but he did not choose to participate, therefore, the order impugned do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. No case has been made by the petitioner on merits for interference in the finding recorded by the tribunal. The Writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 13. For all the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.