ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This appellant is an original petitioner, whose writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1415 of 2017 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14th July, 2017 and his claim for subsistence allowance during the period of suspension i.e. from 22nd December, 2015 to 5th August, 2016 was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original petitioner who was transferred from one Central Jail to another Central Jail. He was serving as a Prison Clerk. 3. It appears that all possible types of sickness have been pleaded one after another like chest pain, cardiac pain, etc. Because of his absenteeism chargesheet was issued, enquiry was conducted after giving adequate opportunity of being heard and it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent-State that he has been dismissed from the services. 4. Counsel for the respondent-State submitted he was continuously absent from 30th October, 2015 and thus, because of his consistence absenteeism chargesheet was issued and dismissal order was also passed. 5. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.P. Sarabhai v. Union Bank of India & Anr. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 377 especially in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 as under: “8. We are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. The appellant remained absent from his duty for a very long time i.e. from 3-6-1997 to 23-11-1997 without any reasonable cause and justification in spite of the respondent’s requests to join the duty and in spite of the respondent’s granting him further time to join the duty. The conduct of the appellant in remaining absent for such a long time shows that he was bent upon to evade the transfer order in any possible manner. The conduct of the appellant in remaining absent for such a long time shows that he was bent upon to evade the transfer order in any possible manner. The grounds of ailment were taken as a ruse to avoid transfer which is amply proved by the conduct of the appellant, when he had unauthorisedly remained absent on the ground that he was unable to attend the duty due to illness for such a long time but he was quite capable of attending the court proceedings on the various days and was also capable of coming to Delhi to file a petition before this Court. The concurrent finding of the enquiry is that he has been shifting stands because initially on the very day of the service of the transfer order he gave a representation mentioning illness of his wife and the studies of his son for the purpose of deferment of the transfer to Chennai from Mumbai. But in the other representation to other officer of the Bank, which he has produced to the Bank, he has stated the reason of his illness as an excuse. Thus, the conduct of the appellant in trotting out all these defences show that he was trying to avoid transfer to Chennai through all possible means. The reason for deferment of transfer given by him before the High Court and this Court in the writ petition and the appeal filed by him against the transfer order was a simple ruse to avoid the transfer. It has been affirmed by the Court in that proceeding that the transfer was done as per exigencies of the Bank. The transfer of the appellant was effected to a large city, namely, Chennai, which as per his own admission has very good medical facilities which are comparable to those in Mumbai. The service of specialist officers and for that matter all officers in the Bank are transferable on all-India basis and they are liable to be posted anywhere in India subject to the personnel and manpower requirement and exigencies of the Bank. 9. The service of specialist officers and for that matter all officers in the Bank are transferable on all-India basis and they are liable to be posted anywhere in India subject to the personnel and manpower requirement and exigencies of the Bank. 9. This Court has repeatedly held that the factual finding of the disciplinary authority after holding a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence is not assailable in the courts unless the breach of principles of natural justice or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of record is alleged and shown. However, in this case the High Court in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has again gone into all aspects of the enquiry in detail and has come to the same factual finding as the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority. Such concurrent findings by three different authorities including the High Court should not be disturbed by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no other option except to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tushar D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2009) 11 SCC 678 especially in paragraph nos. 17 & 18 as under: “17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant’s transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the transfer order and to level allegations against his superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duties from 11-10-1999 to 27-4-2000 i.e. more than six months. In the interest of discipline of any institution or organisation such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced. 20. In the instant case, the matter has been thoroughly examined by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and we have also examined the matter in great detail. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others v. T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 especially in paragraph nos. 2, 3, 4, 32, 33, 34 as under: “2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the exposé of facts that have been undraped are that the respondent was appointed as a Surveyor in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short “CMWSSB”) and subsequently promoted as Junior Engineer in 1989. From 28-8-1995 he remained continuously absent from duty without any intimation to the employer and did not respond to the repeated memoranda/reminders requiring him to explain his unauthorised absence from duty and to rejoin duty. On 1-4-1997 he reported to duty with the medical certificate for his absence from duty for the period commencing 28-8-1995 to 31-3-1997. 3. As the respondent had already remained unauthorisedly absent and did not respond to the memos by offering an explanation, a charge-sheet had already been issued on 11-9-1996 under the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978 (for brevity “the Regulations”). The charge memo contained two charges, namely, that the respondent herein had failed to submit an explanation to the first charge memo dated 11-10-1995 in spite of reminders and second, he deserted his post by remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty from 28-8-1995, and thereby committed misconduct under Regulations 6(1) and 6(2) respectively of the Regulations. Be it noted, though the charge memo was duly acknowledged by the respondent on 19-11-1996, yet he chose not to submit his explanation till 6-1-1997, much after the charge-sheet was issued. 4. As the factual matrix would further uncurtain, an enquiry was conducted against the respondent and his explanation in the enquiry was that he could not attend to the duties and could not give explanation to the first charge memo because of ill health. The enquiry officer found charges were proved and, accordingly, submitted the enquiry report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and after following the due procedure punishment of dismissal was passed on 16-4-1998. The enquiry officer found charges were proved and, accordingly, submitted the enquiry report which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and after following the due procedure punishment of dismissal was passed on 16-4-1998. In the order of dismissal, the disciplinary authority observed that belated submission of medical certificate on 1-4-1997 irresistibly led to the conclusion that the respondent employee was unauthorisedly absent from 28-8-1995. A conclusion was also arrived at that the first charge, namely, that he had not responded to the letters and reminders, also stood proved. Being of this view, the disciplinary authority thought it apt to impose the punishment of dismissal from service and it did so. 32. 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 are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly 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 the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate. 33. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organisation. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Govt. of India v. George Philip (SCC p. 14, para 18) “18. … In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months’ time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organisation. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Govt. of India v. George Philip (SCC p. 14, para 18) “18. … In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months’ time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organisation. Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same.” We respectfully reiterate the said feeling and restate with the hope that the employees in any organisation should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organisation. When we say this, we may not be understood to have stated that the employers should be harsh to impose grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable atmosphere in an organisation develops the work culture and the employer and the employees are expected to remember the same as a precious value for systemic development. 34. Judged on the anvil of the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is that the interference by the High Court with the punishment is totally unwarranted and unsustainable, and further the High Court was wholly unjustified in entertaining the writ petition after a lapse of four years. The result of aforesaid analysis would entail overturning the judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court and, accordingly, we so do.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In view of these facts, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1415 of 2017 vide order dated 14th July, 2017 and we see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.