JUDGMENT PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "(a) the impugned enquiry report dated 02.05.2002 (Annex.9) and the orders dated 11.03.2003 (Annex.13) & 03.01.2007 (Annex.15) respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in services along with all consequential benefits. (c) any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (d) cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner, as noticed by this Court, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Nurse Grade-II in the year 1977 with the respondents, and was promoted as Nurse Grade I in the year 1991. The petitioner had an unblemished service record. 3. The petitioner went on leave on 09.04.1994 and remained absent thereafter. The disciplinary proceedings under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 were initiated against the petitioner for her unauthorized absence from duty, by way of issuing a charge-sheet dated 23.12.1995, against which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 22.01.1996. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner, on being asked to appear, appeared before the respondents on 22.03.1996 to explain the circumstances under which, she remained absent. The petitioner explained the same on account of having various leaves to her credit. However, the petitioner was not permitted to join the duties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 04.04.1996, a punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The said order dated 04.04.1996 was never communicated to the petitioner, but the same came to her knowledge, only when she was given another charge-sheet dated 11.10.1996, which was also affixed on her house on 30.11.1996, wherein the first charge was regarding her unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 04.04.1996 and the second charge was that the petitioner had failed to join the duties, in-spite of the specific directions of the authorities concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner kept on seeking permission to join the duties. However, she was proceeded against with by the respondents. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner kept on seeking permission to join the duties. However, she was proceeded against with by the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents however, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner remained absent from duty since 09.04.1994. The respondents issued a notice by way of publication in the local newspaper on 02.11.1996 and 06.11.1996 asking the petitioner to join the duties within a period of fifteen days, on which the petitioner sought fifteen days' time on 21.11.1996 for joining the duties. Thereafter also, the petitioner kept on seeking time to join the duties, despite issuance of several notices and communications to her by the respondents, and had thus, voluntarily remained absent from duty since 09.04.1994. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner also sought the copy of notice and charge-sheet, but she did not return back to collect the same, and therefore, the respondents pasted the same on her house. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that several notices were sent to the petitioner, but despite that, the petitioner did not join the duties, and therefore, an order dated 04.04.1996 was passed, while imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner, after following the due process of law. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the departmental enquiry was conducted and copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner on 18.04.2002, but she did not submit any representation in regard thereto, and hence, after giving several notices and communications, the impugned order was passed by the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, submitted that pursuant to the charge-sheet, which was issued on 11.10.1996, an enquiry officer was appointed and vide letter dated 26.05.2000, the petitioner was called upon to appear before the enquiry officer on 06.06.2000. The petitioner participated in the enquiry on that date and explained her case to the enquiry officer and the next date of enquiry was fixed and informed, but nothing happened thereafter. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, also submitted that the enquiry officer without having any witnesses or exhibiting documents etc., continued with the enquiry, and concluded the same. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, also submitted that the enquiry officer without having any witnesses or exhibiting documents etc., continued with the enquiry, and concluded the same. In the meanwhile, a show cause notice was issued on 18.04.2002 and the petitioner had submitted a reply thereto on 20.05.2002. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, further submitted that the petitioner was again served with a show cause notice on 01.10.2002 and again submitted a reply thereto on 20.10.2002. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, also submitted that the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 11.03.2003, whereby the petitioner, on being found guilty of the charges, was imposed a punishment of dismissal from service. Against the said order dated 11.03.2003, the petitioner approached the appellate authority, but the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2007, while upholding the order dated 11.03.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, further submitted that none of the witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer, and it was a farce enquiry. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the enquiry was in violation of the Rules of 1958, and the respondents have arbitrarily conducted the enquiry. 17. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the proceedings have been kept pending for a long period. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned orders are not well justified, and therefore, the order dated 11.03.2003 passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate order dated 03.01.2007 impugned herein deserve to be quashed and set aside. 19. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a bare perusal of the record of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner seems to have abandoned her services from 09.04.1994 onwards, and the respondents kept on giving her the chance to rejoin the duties; but since the petitioner was never serious about her joining the duties, therefore, her unauthorized absence from duty continued, and the respondents were compelled to pass the impugned order dated 11.03.2003, dismissing the petitioner from service, which was affirmed by the appellate authority on 03.01.2007. 20. 20. This Court does not find any reason as to why the impugned orders dated 11.03.2003 and 03.01.2007 should be interfered with by this Court, as they are perfectly in accordance with law. Moreover, the facts of the case do not inspire confidence of this Court so as to make any interference in favour of the petitioner. The prolonged voluntary absence of the petitioner from 09.04.1994 to 11.03.2003 is writ large, and in such circumstances, no employer can have a lenient view. 21. In light of the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is dismissed.