JUDGMENT : P.S.Rana, J. Present Civil Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that on dated 10.11.2006 OA No (D) 471 of 2006 was filed before HP Administrative Tribunal against compulsory retirement order dated 4.9.2002. It is pleaded that in the year 2008 OA No. 471 of 2006 was transferred to Hon’ble High Court of HP when HP Administrative Tribunal was scrapped. It is further pleaded that on dated 5.8.2011 CWP(T) No. 14534 of 2008 was decided by Hon’ble High Court of HP and the same was allowed. It is further pleaded that order of penalty Annexure A14 and order of Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner Annexure A20 were quashed. It is further pleaded that Hon’ble High Court of HP in CWP(T) 14534 of 2008 further directed that punishing authority shall pass appropriate orders on the basis of inquiry report after affording the petitioner an opportunity to make representation against the finding of Inquiry Officer. It is further pleaded that thereafter Director of Agriculture-cum-Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 1.8.2012 rejected representation of the petitioner to reinstate him. It is further pleaded that impugned order No. 3-187/67-Ag.I- dated 1.8.2012 Annexure P4 passed by respondent No.2 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority be declared as null and void. It is further pleaded that petitioner be declared in continuous service w.e.f. 4.9.2002 till date of his retirement i.e.30.4.2007 with all consequential service benefits. It is further pleaded that respondents be directed to release the pay and allowances of the petitioner w.e.f. 4.9.2002 to 30.4.2007. It is further pleaded that retired benefit such as pension, DCRG and leave encashment be also released with all arrears along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that petitioner was transferred from the office of Deputy Director of Agriculture Palampur to the Directorate of Agriculture Shimla on dated 25.9.1997. It is further pleaded that petitioner was relieved by Deputy Director of Agriculture Palampur on dated 19.11.1997 but he did not join in the office of Directorate of Agriculture Shimla. It is further pleaded that petitioner willfully remained absent and was placed under suspension. It is further pleaded that petitioner was relieved by Deputy Director of Agriculture Palampur on dated 19.11.1997 but he did not join in the office of Directorate of Agriculture Shimla. It is further pleaded that petitioner willfully remained absent and was placed under suspension. It is further pleaded that thereafter petitioner was reinstated on dated 10.5.1999 with direction to resume duty in the Directorate of Agriculture Shimla and suspension period was treated as leave of the kind due and penalty of censure was imposed against the petitioner. It is further pleaded that even thereafter petitioner did not report for duty in the Directorate of Agriculture HP Shimla and remained absent without intimation. It is further pleaded that thereafter registered letter was issued to the petitioner and petitioner was informed that disciplinary action would be initiated against him. It is further pleaded that notice was also issued to the petitioner and same was published in the Indian Express on dated 29.7.1999 but despite the above stated facts petitioner did not resume the duty and behave in irresponsible manner and violated rules and office procedure. It is further pleaded that petitioner remained absent from duty without intimation and did not submit any leave application. It is further pleaded that thereafter Disciplinary Authority passed compulsory retirement order. It is further pleaded that thereafter OA No. (D) 471 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner before HP Administrative Tribunal and after scraped of the HP Administrative Tribunal the petition was transferred to Hon’ble High Court of HP and the same was registered as CWP(T) 14534 of 2008. It is further pleaded that petitioner submitted a representation and was afforded two opportunities to represent his case but he did not turn up. It is further pleaded that thereafter representation of the petitioner to reinstate from the date of compulsory retirement was again rejected. It is further pleaded that petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is further pleaded that order dated 1.8.2012 Annexure P4 was issued after careful consideration by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further pleaded that Annexure P4 is legal document and the same be upheld. It is further pleaded that writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused entire records carefully. 4. It is further pleaded that Annexure P4 is legal document and the same be upheld. It is further pleaded that writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused entire records carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition: (1) Whether civil writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of civil writ petition. (2) Final Order. Finding upon Point No.1. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner that impugned order No. 3-187/67-Agr.I dated 1.8.2012 Annexure P4 passed by respondent No.2 in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority be declared as null and void being contrary to law is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that on dated 5.8.2011 Hon’ble High Court of HP in CWP(T) No. 14534 of 2008 titled Sushil Kumar Dogra Vs. State of HP and another directed the Disciplinary Authority to pass an appropriate order on the basis of inquiry report after affording the petitioner an opportunity to make representation against the finding of Inquiry Officer. It is proved on record that in compliance to order of Hon’ble High Court of HP passed in civil writ petition cited supra Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh on dated 3.11.2011 directed petitioner to file representation against the findings of inquiry report within 20 days positively. It is proved on record that thereafter on dated 19.3.2012 Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh again directed the petitioner to file representation against the findings of inquiry report by way of personal hearing fixed on 28.3.2012 at 10.00 AM sharp in the chamber of Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh Shimla. It is proved on record that thereafter petitioner Sushil Kumar has submitted that date of hearing be fixed after 20.4.2012. It is also proved on record that thereafter again Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh directed the petitioner to file representation against the finding of inquiry report by way of personal hearing fixed on dated 25.4.2012 at 10.00 AM sharp in the chamber of Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh. It is also proved on record that thereafter again Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh directed the petitioner to file representation against the finding of inquiry report by way of personal hearing fixed on dated 25.4.2012 at 10.00 AM sharp in the chamber of Director of Agriculture Himachal Pradesh. It is proved on record that thereafter representation was filed by petitioner Sushil Kumar and petitioner further submitted in written manner that facts stated in his representation be treated as his statement in personal hearing. It is proved on record that despite several opportunities granted by the Disciplinary Authority petitioner did not appear before the Disciplinary Authority for his statement. On the contrary petitioner has specifically mentioned in his representation that representation qua compulsory retirement w.e.f. 4.9.2002 be treated as a statement in personal hearing. It is well settled law that there is difference between the pleading and oral testimony. It is also well settled law that facts can be proved by way of oral testimony or by way of documentary evidence. No sufficient reason has been mentioned by the petitioner for non-appearance before the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner did not place on record any medical certificate in order to prove his health problem. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that Inquiry Officer has not permitted the petitioner to examine himself as defence witness is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. Petitioner was asked by the Inquiry Officer on dated 27.11.2001, 2.2.2002 and 15.2.2002 to give statement in his defence but petitioner failed to do so. 7. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that written briefs dated 20.4.2002 and 24.5.2002 stated to have been given to the Inquiry Officer was not received by the Inquiry Officer is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that written briefs dated 20.4.2002 and 24.5.2002 given to the Inquiry Officer. This appears to be after thought story of the petitioner. 8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that inquiry is vitiated is not substantive with records because petitioner has himself signed the statement given by the prosecution witness from page 52 to 55 and page 64 to 66. This appears to be after thought story of the petitioner. 8. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that inquiry is vitiated is not substantive with records because petitioner has himself signed the statement given by the prosecution witness from page 52 to 55 and page 64 to 66. The concerned Assistant Director of Agriculture has also stated in his statement before the Inquiry Officer on dated 28.5.2001 during cross examination that letter A6, A21 and A22 were not received in the office of Directorate of Agriculture. In the present case it is proved on record through affidavit that petitioner was transferred from the office of Deputy Director Agriculture Palampur to the Directorate Agriculture Shimla on dated 25.9.1997 and it is also proved on record that petitioner was relieved by Deputy Director Agriculture Palampur on dated 19.11.1997 but petitioner did not join at his place of posting and petitioner remained willfully absent and was placed under suspension. It is also proved on record that petitioner was reinstated on dated 10.5.1999 with direction to resume duty in the office of Directorate of Agriculture Shimla and the period of suspension was treated as leave of kind due. It is also proved on record that despite reinstatement of the petitioner on dated 10.5.1999 petitioner did not join the duty at his place of posting and willfully remained absent from duty. It is proved on record that thereafter notice was issued to the petitioner through registered letter dated 31.5.1999 and 21.6.1999 which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner but despite the above stated facts petitioner did not join at his place of posting. It is well settled law that employee cannot be permitted to flout the transfer order of appointing authority. No reason has been assigned by the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not join at the place of his posting. It is well settled law that employee has no legal right to be retained in a particular station. It is well settled law that employer has legal right to transfer the employee at a particular station as per exigency of the circumstances of service. It is well settled law that employee has no legal right to be retained in a particular station. It is well settled law that employer has legal right to transfer the employee at a particular station as per exigency of the circumstances of service. In the present case keeping in view conduct of the petitioner for non joining posting station he is not legally entitled for any relief as sought in the writ petition because it is proved on record that petitioner had committed non-compliance of the order of appointing authority qua transfer order. It is proved on record that petitioner willfully did not join at the place of his posting. It is also proved on record that even after reinstatement on dated 10.5.1999 petitioner did not join at the place of his posting intentionally and voluntarily. Court is of the opinion that employee cannot be allowed to dictate the terms to the appointment authority qua place of posting. In view of the above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative against the petitioner. Point No.2. Final Order. 9. In view of the findings in point No.1 civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed and relief(s) sought in relief clause from paras (a) to (h) are declined in the ends of justice keeping in view the fact that petitioner intentionally did not join at the place of his posting despite several opportunities granted by appointment authority. Writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. All miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.