JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents for reinstatement of petitioner in services by setting aside letter dated 21/23.06.1999 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 2. Heard Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel for the respondents-BCCL. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of PRUG Minor Loader, but, after serving for about two years, the condition of the colliery did not suit the petitioner, as such he regularly fell ill, hence, due to illness and difficulties in performing underground duty, the petitioner made regular representation before the authority concerned to consider him for working on surface area, but, it did not evoke any response. It has further been submitted that due to illness the for certain period, the petitioner could not attend his duty, but, that fact has not been considered, and he has been straightway dismissed from services. 4. Reiterating the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the joining of the petitioner, his services was not satisfactory and he was in the habit of absenting unauthorizedly, which is grave misconduct. Learned counsel for the respondents drawing attention of the Court towards attendance of the petitioner submitted that attendance of the petitioner in the year 1996 was 194 days, in 1997, it was 48 days and in the year 1998, it was 28 days only. It has further been submitted that due to such poor attendance for the last three years and delay in submitting the appeal before the competent authority as prescribed under Clause 30.2 of the Certified Standing Order, applicable to the workmen of the BCCL, the case of the petitioner was not considered. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it appears that prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in services does not merit consideration in view of the fact that due to unauthorized absence from duty as PRUG Minor Loader in underground duty, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and accordingly enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, in which, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and after serving copy of enquiry report, impugned order of dismissal from services was parsed. On perusal of the record, it further appears that there is absolutely no infirmity on the part of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner in services. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed.