ORDER : S.S.SUNDAR, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22.10.2019 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging his termination order passed by the respondents vide the impugned proceedings. 2. The appellant joined the Neyveli Lignite Corporation on 06.01.1989 as a Diploma Engineer Trainee. Subsequently, he was also promoted to the post of Additional Engineer, Mine-I in the Corporation. The appellant submitted an application dated 27.05.2008 for sanction of EOL for a period of two years from 01.09.2008 to 31.08.2010 on the basis of a circular issued by the respondent Corporation. The appellant in his leave application stated that he got an employment offer from a private concern in Libya. He has earlier got EOL for employment abroad from 4.6.1996 to 30.06.1998. His application was admittedly recommended by the respondents 3 and 4 and the same was forwarded to the Chief General Manager. However, no leave was sanctioned. Thereafter, the appellant herein, sent another application dated 27.08.2008 again to visit his friend's place at Libya to attend a family function as a tourist. This time, his request was to grant three months EOL from 04.09.2008 to 03.12.2008. The second application was also rejected by a letter issued by the second respondent. After receiving the said communication, the appellant again sent a letter dated 10.10.2008 seeking the intervention of the first respondent. The second respondent vide his letter dated 10.11.2008 again informed the appellant that his request has been rejected. After receiving the above communication, the appellant had sent another letter dated 18.11.2008 once again stating that he has received a letter from his friend who had invited him to visit Libya to attend his family function to be held on 10.09.2008. 3. Thereafter, the appellant sent another letter dated 02.12.2008 for extension of EOL from 03.12.2008 to 02.02.2009 on medical grounds. It is to be noted that by a communication dated 29.09.2008, the appellant was called upon to join duty immediately. It was further cautioned in the said communication that if the appellant, does not join duty immediately, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated. It is to be noted that by a communication dated 29.09.2008, the appellant was called upon to join duty immediately. It was further cautioned in the said communication that if the appellant, does not join duty immediately, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated. Despite several communications addressed to the appellant, by a communication dated 10.10.2008, the appellant made the following request: " I wish to inform your goodself that, I have applied EOL from 04.09.2008 to 03.12.2008 vide letter cited above and the reason for my leave was to visit Libya to attend my friends family function. Based on the approval given by my department head I have proceeded to Libya on 08.09.2008 from Delhi and have reached Tripoli on 09.09.2008. (Immigration seal at Delhi and landing at Tripoli is enclosed herewith). Also I have declared that I will not engage myself in any employment during the time of my stay in Libya. No I have received a letter from CGM/MI&IA stating that the leave has not been sanctioned and I was advised to join the duty immediately. Hence, considering my genuine case I kindly request that my leave up to 03.12.2008 may please be granted." 4. Thereafter, by a communication dated 10.11.2008, the Chief General Manager/the second respondent again informed the appellant that EOL applied by the appellant has already been refused by communication dated 29.09.2008 and that the head of the division was instructed not to permit the appellant to proceed on leave. By this communication, the appellant was informed that his request had been rejected and that even the call to join on duty is without prejudice to the disciplinary action contemplated against the appellant. 5. In continuation of the leave letters, without responding to several communications issued by the respondents, the petitioner has sent several communications as if he had to visit Libya to attend his friend's family function, which was held on 10.09.2008. Surprisingly even the subsequent communications which he had sent only states that his unauthorised absence was due to his visit to Libya to attend his friend's family function, which was held on 10.09.2008. Meanwhile disciplinary proceedings was initiated. By order dated 20.07.2009 punishment of removal from service was imposed. The appellant's appeal was also rejected by third respondent. Writ petition was therefore filed in W.P. No.4548 of 2010 challenging the dismissal. 6. Meanwhile disciplinary proceedings was initiated. By order dated 20.07.2009 punishment of removal from service was imposed. The appellant's appeal was also rejected by third respondent. Writ petition was therefore filed in W.P. No.4548 of 2010 challenging the dismissal. 6. The learned single Judge, after perusal of the records, justified the order of the original authority, as the conduct of the appellant was shocking and unbecoming of an employee to hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the original authority as well as the appellate authority. As against the dismissal of the writ petition, the instant writ appeal has been filed. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record in the form of typed set of papers. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to justify his unauthorised absence. The question, whether the unauthorised absence reported by the respondents should lead to removal or dismissal of the service, cannot be decided without giving an opportunity to the appellant. 9. This court, having regard to the exchange of communications and the contents is satisfied that the conduct of the appellant shows his dishonest attitude. Even after knowing that his leave application was rejected, the appellant admittedly, had tripped to abroad under the pretext of visiting his friend at Libya to attend his family function. The family function even referred to in his communication was on 10.09.2008. However, his stay was extended beyond the family function, for no reasons. He again extended the leave owing to medical reasons. Therefore, from one of the communications of the appellant, namely dated 27.05.2008, the appellant has requested the respondents to grant leave for the following reasons. The contents of the said letter is relevant. Therefore, the same is extracted for better appreciation and convenience. "I wish to inform that I got an offer of employment, abroad, for the post of Project Engineer/Civil from D.S Construction Limited/Libya vide reference 2nd cited above. Hence I request you to sir to grant me 2 years EOL for taking up the foreign assignment and oblige please." 10. Therefore, the original request was to go abroad to take up a foreign assignment. This request was rejected. Under the scheme EOL can be granted only if the unit head confirms that no substitute will be required in his place. Therefore, the original request was to go abroad to take up a foreign assignment. This request was rejected. Under the scheme EOL can be granted only if the unit head confirms that no substitute will be required in his place. Hence its refusal to grant leave cannot be questioned. However, the appellant by his several communications wanted to establish that his request was unreasonably rejected and therefore, the impugned order of removal from service is in violation of principles of natural justice. 11. On the admitted facts, this court is convinced that the persons like the appellant, who was neither faithful nor sincere to the management, cannot be shown any indulgence. He never conducted himself to the respondents faithfully and his conduct was not one merely disobeying the directions of the respondents, but also causing inconvenience to the establishment. To substantiate the same, the allegations levelled against the appellant in the charge memo dated 24.11.2008 are as below: "(a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with others, or any lawful and reasonable order of his superior, or commission of any acts subversive of discipline or of good behaviour falling under sub-clause (i) of Rule 26 of NLC Employees' (Conduct) Rules. (b) Leaving station (Head quarters) without permission falling under sub-clause (vii) of Rule 26 of NLC Employees' (Conduct) Rules. (c) Absence without leave or without permission falling under sub-clause (viii) of Rule 26 of NLC Employees' (Conduct) Rules. (d) Breach of any law, rules, regulations or others applicable to the establishment falling under sub-clause (x) of Rule 26 of NLC Employees' (Conduct) Rules. (e) Maintain absolute integrity falling under sub rule (i) of 1 Rule 3 (f) Maintain devotion to duty falling under sub rule (ii) of 1 Rule 3 (g) Conduct himself in a manner conducive to the best interests, credit and prestige of the company falling under sub rule (iii) of 1 Rule 3; and (h) Do nothing which is unbecoming of a company employee falling under the sub rule (iv) of 1 Rule 3." 12. The learned single Judge is unable to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority and found that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. The learned single Judge is unable to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority and found that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Others vs. P.C.Kakkar reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 relied on by the petitioner/appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the penalty imposed on the appellant is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The same argument was also considered by the learned single Judge and the learned single Judge held that the conduct of the appellant in abstaining from duty without any reason cannot just be condoned. Even in the background of all the explanations, this court, considering the contents of the letters and the dishonest attitude of the appellant to abstain from work unauthorisedly to get employment abroad hold that the appellant deserves the punishment of dismissal. Hence this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.