JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner is assailing order dtd. 21/5/2011 (Annexure-K) and order dtd. 13/2/2011 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.2 and 3 respectively interalia, sought for declaration that the disciplinary action initiated by the respondents is contrary to law. 2. The relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner while working as Grade-I Mechanic with the respondent-authorities, on the ground of unauthorized absence, the respondentauthorities initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted and despite notice received by the petitioner, he remained absent and therefore, Disciplinary Authority passed order dtd. 21/5/2011 (Annexure-K) dismissing the petitioner from the service on the ground that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for a period of 1220 days. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority by order dtd. 13/12/2011, confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard B.S. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Medini Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Harikrishna S.Holla, for respondent No.1. 4. Sri B.S. Basavaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner was not able to get opportunity to represent before the Enquiry Officer as he has not received the notice. He further contended that, he has informed Junior Engineer of the office to forward the leave letters and medical certificates to the Departmental Authority however, the same was not done by the said Junior Engineer and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Smt Medini Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities and submitted that despite notice has been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings and thereafter, the notice through paper publication was taken and therefore, she contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent-authorities requires to be affirmed. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the petitioner was working with the respondent-authorities and he remained absent for a period of 1220 days. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the petitioner was working with the respondent-authorities and he remained absent for a period of 1220 days. On careful examination of the writ papers would further indicate that, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners seeking explanation and same was served to the petitioner despite the same, the petitioner did not file his reply, nor appeared before the Enquiry Officer. I have carefully perused the original records, submitted by the respondent-authorities and same would indicate that the notice sent by the respondent-authorities were served on the petitioner herein. Taking into consideration the factual aspects on records, the petitioner has remained absent for 1220 days and in this regard, the respondent-authorities have taken notice through paper publication in Prajavani and Andolana Daily news papers, and despite the same, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. Being a responsible officer of the respondent-Corporation, the action of the petitioner not intimating the respondentCorporation for a period of 1220 days despite having received notices amounts to misconduct and therefore, I am of the view that, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent-Corporation. 7. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has sent leave letters though the Junior Engineer, however, the said defense was not taken while filing appeal before the Appellate Authority and therefore, the submission made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is well settled principle in law that this court is having limited power of judicial review in respect of the departmental enquiry and interference will be made only if the procedure adopted by the respondent-authorities is illegal. On looking into the original records, I am of the view that respondentCorporation has complied with the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has produced the details along with memo dtd. 1/3/2023 wherein, charge sheet issued by the respondents served through postal acknowledgment and same is accepted by the delinquent employee. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the result, writ petition is dismissed.