JUDGMENT 1. By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 22.01.2013 passed in CWP No. 986/2004 whereby, a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition while declining to interfere in the orders imposing and maintaining major penalty of removal from service, as passed against him after departmental inquiry. 2. The translated version of the charges against the petitioner-appellant in the departmental inquiry has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned; and it appears appropriate to reproduce the same as under:- "1. That on date 21-22/9/2001 signing on the outgoing batch at 19.45 o'clock on entry No. 40 of Rojnamcha of Company No. 56 Jodhpur, he was deputed in D.R.M. Office Beat. He, from duty beat, without any information and permission of Competent Officer, became absent unauthorizedly. His absence was marked in Chief Inspector Company Registar at Sr. No. 336 at 22.15 o'clock and at entry No. 54 in rojnamcha of Company No. 56 at 22:50 o'clock on date 21/9/2001. 2. That on date 21-22/9/2001 after being absent from duty beat, he remained absent unauthorizedly upto 4/10/2001 for 13 days without any information and permission of Competent Officer, which is mark of indiscipline and carelessness. 3. That in the same sequence after serving duty from 5/10/2001 to 6/10/2001, after being off from B.G. Yard from 8.00 to 16.00 o'clock on date 6/10/2001, on date 7/10/2001 at 1.05 o'clock consuming liquor, stopping the Railway Canteen owner giving abuses inflicted inquiry on body by stone. A written report was lodged against you in Railway Police station and case No. 81/2001 under Section 143 Railway Act and Section 323, 341 of I.P.C. was registered against you, and you were arrested at 4.15 a.m. on date 7/10/2001. This act of yours is indecent and is against the image of the force. By this the image of the force has been tarnished." 3. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner-appellant did not appear before the Inquiry Officer inspite of several opportunities; and ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. However, after the Inquiry Officer submitted his ex parte findings dated 06.12.2001, the appellant was afforded further opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority of making his representation/submissions; and he submitted the representation on 24.12.2001. However, after the Inquiry Officer submitted his ex parte findings dated 06.12.2001, the appellant was afforded further opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority of making his representation/submissions; and he submitted the representation on 24.12.2001. The Disciplinary Authority, after a comprehensive examination of the inquiry proceedings as also the representation of the appellant, accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held the charges of serious misconduct proved against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority, accordingly, proceeded to impose upon him the penalty of removal from service. The appeal as also the revision petition filed by the appellant were duly considered by the respective authorities and were rejected while upholding the penalty of removal from service. 4. Seeking to question the orders so passed, the basic contention on behalf of the petitioner-appellant before the writ Court had been that he was denied proper opportunity to defend and the ex parte proceedings were not sustainable. The learned Single Judge has referred to the record and has particularly referred to the findings of the Appellate Authority as under:- "The appellant acknowledged receipt of the charge sheet on 1.11.2001 and the DAR inquiry was entrusted to Shri A.K.Kullu, IPF/RPF/SCR/ Jodhpur who afforded the appellant all reasonable opportunities to defend himself. It is however, observed that in spite of acknowledging the notices sent by the Inquiry Officer directing the appellant to attend the DAR inquiry, he failed to do so thereby compelling the former to finalise the proceedings ex parte. Thereafter a copy of the DAR findings was forwarded to the appellant for submitting his representation before passing final order by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the appellant submitted his representation dated 21.12.2001 which was considered by Disciplinary Authority who inflicted upon him the punishment of removal from service." 5. The learned Single Judge has further referred to the service record of the petitioner-appellant showing, inter alia, that before the inquiry in question, he had been awarded different punishments, at least in three different inquiry proceedings. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the appellant was unable to state anything about the charges leveled against him; and has observed that the medical certificate, as regards his absence in the inquiry proceedings, was not inspiring confidence. 6. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the appellant was unable to state anything about the charges leveled against him; and has observed that the medical certificate, as regards his absence in the inquiry proceedings, was not inspiring confidence. 6. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the proceedings as taken up in criminal case, referable to the facts forming the basics of charge No. 3, show it clearly that the appellant had been guilty of abusing the official position; and this apart, there had been a clear case of unauthorized absence from duty, which is always considered to be a gross misconduct, particularly when the person belongs to a disciplined force. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant has been denied adequate opportunity of defence and in the given set of facts and circumstances of the case, where he was suffering from ailment and was not in a position to attend the proceedings, the Inquiry Officer was not justified in proceeding ex parte against him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has further submitted that so far the facts referable to charge No. 3 are concerned, there might have been a minor altercation but ultimately, the matter was compromised between the parties and hence, the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 341 IPC were compounded and even in relation to Section 145 of the Railways Act, he was released after admonition. According to the learned counsel, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner is about 48 years of age, has a family to support, and the misconduct had not been of extreme grave nature, his case ought to be considered from a sympathetic point of view; and he could be awarded some other punishment but removal is too harsh and hard a punishment. The learned counsel has also contended that the factors concerning previous misconduct or the previous disciplinary proceedings cannot form the basis of imposition of punishment of removal from service when the appellant was not put to notice in that regard. 9. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in this matter. 10. 9. Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in this matter. 10. It is borne out from the record of the proceedings that repeated notices were given to the petitioner-appellant for participation in inquiry proceedings. Earlier, the notices were not served upon him but were served upon his brother, who was found residing at the same address. However, ultimately on 03.12.2001, the notice to attend the inquiry proceedings was indeed served upon the petitioner-appellant himself, but he chose not to attend. In the given set of facts and circumstances, where the suggestions about the ailment were not inspiring confidence and there was no justification for his continuous absence in the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer cannot said to have committed any illegality in drawing the report in accordance with law. 11. The petitioner-appellant was further served with the copy of inquiry report and submissions sought to be made by him were duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the order of punishment. The Appellate Authority and thereafter the Revisional Authority further considered the matter in detail before rejecting the contentions of the petitioner-appellant. 12. It had been in the context of the appellant pleading for leniency that the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority examined the previous records and found him to be of rather incorrigible type and not entitled for any sympathetic consideration. The compromise of matter with the complainant/victim as regards the offence under Sections 341 & 323 IPC, in our view, does not take away the element of delinquency on the part of the petitioner-appellant. 13. Unauthorized absence from duty and then, misusing the official position had been two major charges emphatically and clearly substantiated against the petitioner-appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, removal could have been the only adequate punishment in the matter. Moreover, when his past record is looked at, where he had been penalised thrice over, any scope for leniency is also ruled out. 14. Accordingly and in view of the above, we find nothing of error or infirmity on the part of the learned Single Judge in declining interference in the writ jurisdiction. 15. The appeal fails and is, therefore dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******