JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 07.05.2003 whereby the petitioner has been removed from services and for quashing order of appellate authority by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and for quashing letter dated 27.08.2003, by which, the respondent intimated the petitioner that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and also direction upon the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in services with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, is that previously the petitioner was in the service of Centre for Water Resources Studies, Patna and pursuant to the advertisement issued in May, 1997 for the post of Deputy Manager (System Analyst), the petitioner applied and after going through the selection process, he joined the respondent-corporation on 03.02.1998. While continuing as such, memo of charges dated 20.03.2002 was served upon the petitioner. Relevant portion of Statement of Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner, is quoted herein below: 1. That the attendance of the said Sri Ranjan from the year 2000 onwards has been irregular in so much as he committed indisciplined acts of remaining absent without prior sanction of leave, leaving the Headquarters without permission and overstaying the sanctioned leave. 2. That said Sri Ranjan has overstayed the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days after expiry of Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) from 22.02.2001 to 03.03.2001 by not reporting for his duties immediately on expiry of the sanctioned leave being granted. 3. That said Shri Ranjan, despite being directed to resume duty vide letter No. HEC/GM/CM/SYSTEMS/02-72 dated 7.3.2002, failed to do so. Basing on the aforesaid allegation, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 25 of the HEC Employee's Conduct Disciplinary & Appeal Rule, 1981. In the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer found the petitioner to be guilty of all the charges and accordingly, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from services vide order dated 07.05.2003. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.08.2003. 3. In the enquiry proceeding, the enquiry officer found the petitioner to be guilty of all the charges and accordingly, the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from services vide order dated 07.05.2003. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.08.2003. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period spent on leave by the petitioner was subsequently sanctioned by the respondents-Management in the form of C.L., E.L, E.D.L and medical leaves and while sanctioning the respective leave no question was raised, thereby, the period of leave was regularized and subsequently serving of memo of charge, which led to passing of impugned orders by the respondent-Management is highly illegal. It has further been submitted that initially the petitioner went on sanctioned leave for ten days on 22.02.2001, but, due to illness of his father, he could not report for duty and after attending his ailing father, the petitioner reported for duty on 25.06.2001 but he was not allowed to do so and he was placed under suspension and after considerable period of time, vide letter dated 11.03.2002 he was directed to join his duty before 13.03.2002 but due to ill fate of the petitioner, since he was suffering from viral fever, he submitted his joining report on 01.04.2002. However, in the meantime, disciplinary proceeding was initiated, which led to passing of impugned orders. 4. Controverting the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from the very beginning of his appointment, the petitioner starting taking leave, on the one ground or the other; on medical ground of himself, for treatment of his cousin brother and for treatment of his father etc. and did not mend his way and continued to remain absented himself and when he was advised to appear before the Medical Board of HEC vide letter dated 10.01.2001 and afterwards, he evaded his presence. Several notices/letters were sent to him for his immediate joining but he ignored the request of the management. Besides the period of other leave, the petitioner remained absent w.e.f 25.08.2000 to 17.02.2001 (175 days) on the pretext of suffering from jaundice. During that period, he was advised several times to report for duty but he did not report nor consulted the company's hospital. Besides the period of other leave, the petitioner remained absent w.e.f 25.08.2000 to 17.02.2001 (175 days) on the pretext of suffering from jaundice. During that period, he was advised several times to report for duty but he did not report nor consulted the company's hospital. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner never reported for joining on 25.06.2001 and when the petitioner failed to report for duty for a considerable period after expiry of sanctioned leave, he did not report, then he was directed to report for duty on or before 13.03.2002. But, again the petitioner on the pretext of viral fever did not report for duty and finally reported on 1.04.2002. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that in the enquiry proceeding the petitioner was afforded full opportunity to defend his case and enquiry was conducted in all fairness. So far the jurisdiction of disciplinary authority is concerned, it is submitted that order of removal dated 07.05.2003 in respect of petitioner was issued under the signature of disciplinary authority after obtaining order from the appointing authority, hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the opinion that 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: (a). Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner from the very beginning of his service career, intermittently proceeded on leave without proper sanction and some times over-stayed; on the one pretext or the other and remained unauthorizedly absent for a long period of time, for which, a proceeding was initiated mainly on the charge that his attendance was irregular from the year 2000, he remained absent without prior sanction of leave and of leaving headquarters without permission and for over-stay and it is further alleged that in spite of the direction to report for joining, he did not appear, which shows that the absent was willful and the petitioner was a habitual absentee. Hence, the impugned order of removal from services does not warrant interference by this Court. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. Hence, the impugned order of removal from services does not warrant interference by this Court. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu Sewerage Board & Ors as reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 . (b). From perusal of records, it is quite evident that since the inception of departmental proceeding till its culmination there is no procedural irregularity. Hence, looking to the facts of the case, it is to be seen as to whether the case of the petitioner comes within the ambit and scope of no evidence so as to enable this Court to exercise power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The factum of absence has been proved and during the course of hearing sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to put forth his defence as to whether the absence was willful or it was due to unavoidable or compelling circumstances. (C).The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 : 2007 (1) JCR 250 (SC) at paragraph 4 has held that: “4. ........ It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquriy officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed..........”. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held that High Court under Article 226 cannot disturb the facts and findings given by the disciplinary authority. Applying the aforesaid principles of Hon'ble Apex Court, as indicated herein above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of dismissal from services and appellate order do not warrant interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petitioner, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.