JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. The captioned writ application has been filed to quash order dated 29.04.2003 pertaining to removal of the petitioner as Medical Superintendent and for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents for reinstatement of the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Medical Officer in the year 1983 and in due course the petitioner has been given promotion as Medical Superintendent. During his continuance as Medical Superintendent, the petitioner intended to appear in Post Graduate Medical Entrance Test, 1998 of All India Entrance Examination, for which, he applied for grant of “No Objection Certificate” and the same was issued by the competent authority vide letter dated 03.10.1997. It has been contended that since the petitioner had to visit his native village for some urgent work, he had taken earned leave for the period 3.10.1997 to 15.10.1997, which was duty sanctioned, but he fell ill due to jaundice, as a result of which he did not resume his official duty after expiry of earned leave period but the petitioner regularly sent his applications for extension of leave. It has further been submitted that after recovery from illness the petitioner obtained medical fitness certificate from the competent authority and requested the authority to allow him to resume duties vide letter dated 02.04.1998. It has been submitted that in spite of all the formalities completed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the authority of Pundi Project, CCL, where the petitioner was posted as Medical Superintendent, no information was received from the office of Director, Personnel, CCL with regard to acceptance of his joining. It has been submitted that in the meantime the result of Post Graduate Course was published and the petitioner requested for grant of study leave, but the petitioner on account of getting no response from the office of Director, Personnel, CCL, the petitioner left with no alternative took admission in the said Course. Thereafter, a memo of charge was framed against the petitioner vide letter dated 14/23.04.1999, in which, two charges were levelled against the petitioner. It has been submitted that thereafter inquiry officer was appointed for conducting the enquiry, who submitted his report which was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2001. Thereafter, a memo of charge was framed against the petitioner vide letter dated 14/23.04.1999, in which, two charges were levelled against the petitioner. It has been submitted that thereafter inquiry officer was appointed for conducting the enquiry, who submitted his report which was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 12.07.2001. It has been submitted that though in the enquiry report it is stated that three times notices were issued to the petitioner to appear in the enquiry but he failed to appear but the petitioner was not aware of the said notices. However, the petitioner made a representation before the respondents-authorities that he is not in a position to appear in the departmental proceeding vide letter dated 26.07.2001. It has been submitted that the respondents without considering the case of the petitioner has issued order dated 29.04.2003, by which, the petitioner has been removed from service of Medical Superintendent. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of removal from services dated 29.04.2003, the petitioner left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner proceeded on earned leave from 03.10.1997 to 15.10.1997 and in continuation he availed sick leave from 16.10.1997 to 25.03.1998. Thereafter, though the petitioner reported for duty, as he was on sick leave for a period of six months and 10 days but approval was required to allow him to resume duty. It is stated that thereafter, the petitioner without prior permission proceeded to pursue higher studies for two years, presuming that leave will be granted on its own by the management, which amounts to misconduct as per the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. It has been submitted under the said Rule, the petitioner has been issued memorandum dated 23.04.1999 with a direction to reply before 27.04.1999. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was constituted and notices were issued to his residential address in the matter of his absence and when he did not appear even the notices were published in local newspaper and finally the enquiry had been held ex-parte and report of the same was communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was constituted and notices were issued to his residential address in the matter of his absence and when he did not appear even the notices were published in local newspaper and finally the enquiry had been held ex-parte and report of the same was communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 26.7.2001 and 10.01.2002 but the respondents-authorities did not find any valid reason for consideration and finally removed the petitioner from services vide order dated 29.04.2003. 5. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the documents available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse and the impugned order of removal from services is grossly disproportionate, harsh and not commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had applied for “No Objection Certificate” for appearing in the said examination, which was duly granted by the respondents-authorities and the petitioner had made repeated requests for grant of leave, hence, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be construed as a misconduct so as to inflict the punishment of removal from services. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been visited with a civil consequence without being given sufficient opportunity since the enquiry has been held ex-parte thereby principles of natural justice has been given a complete go by from the initiation of proceeding till its culmination. 7. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. as reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5596, on the issue of doctrine of proportionality. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the decision rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. as reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1633 on the issue of unauthorized absence. 9. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors. as reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5596, on the issue of doctrine of proportionality. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the decision rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India & Anr. as reported in 2012 AIR SCW 1633 on the issue of unauthorized absence. 9. Assailing the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on perusal of Annexure 1 to the writ petition, it would be quite evident that the issue of “No Objection Certificate” for appearing in Post Graduate Medical Test, 1998 was subject to condition that the “normal office work shall not be hampered”. In spite of such a condition, the petitioner proceeded on leave, which was not sanctioned by the competent authorities. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 wherein at clause 7 and 18, the absence without leave of over-staying the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory has been shown as misconduct. It has further been submitted that petitioner held a statutory position in the company, hence, it was essential on the part of the Management to make alternative arrangement before the petitioner is relieved on leave to pursue higher studies. For this it is the responsibility of the petitioner to inform the management well in time to process his case. It has further been submitted that though the petitioner has obtained permission to appear for the entrance test but failed to take permission for study leave as per the rules of the company before taking his admission in the course. 10. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legally tenable point to warrant interference by this Court, due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement:- (i) Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner remained unauthorized absent for a long period of time to avail study leave for the purpose of pursuing Post Graduate in Medical Sciences, for which, a proceeding was initiated. From perusal of records, it is quite evident that there is no procedural irregularity since the point of initiation of proceeding till its culmination i.e. removal of the petitioner from services. From perusal of records, it is quite evident that there is no procedural irregularity since the point of initiation of proceeding till its culmination i.e. removal of the petitioner from services. Further, there is no gainsaying that the petitioner, who was serving on a responsible post, may not have known to the Rules and Regulation of the company. Knowing fully well the consequences and the fact that his leave has not been sanctioned by the authorities, he proceeded on leave, taking it for granted. (ii) So far as the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is absolutely no quarrel over the propositions/ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court but in the facts and circumstances of the case those decisions are not applicable in this case. The decision rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar (Supra) has been rendered in the context of unauthorized absence, which was construed to be not wilful but in the instant case the unauthorized absence has been found to be willful by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions are not applicable in this case. (iii) Moreover, the claim of the petitioner that the punishment awarded is too harsh and not commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner, it would be apposite to refer Clause 7 and 18 of Chapter II of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 of Coal India Limited, wherein even absence without leave for more than four consecutive days has been termed as misconduct. Here, in the case of petitioner, he remained absent for a long time. Hence, on this score also the petitioner could not be able to make out a case for interference. (iv) In the case of hand, it would be apposite to refer to a decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others vs. T.T. Murali Babu as reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 , in particular, paragraph 32, which is quoted herein below:- “The learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that the respondent had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual absenteeism” is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual absenteeism” is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorizedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate.” 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of removal from services dated 29.04.2003 does not warrant interference by this Court, which is accordingly is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.