JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 07.05.2021, issued by the 6th Respondent; whereby the Petitioner has been terminated from service. The Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.03.2021 (2nd show- cause notice and all other orders in connection with the departmental proceedings. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he went on leave; however, since he was mentally sick he remained absent for about 10 years and since he was medically sick; as such, his termination order should be quashed and he may be allowed to resume duty. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since he was mentally sick, he was unable to reply the 1st show-cause notice and even the Inquiry Officer has come to a finding that he was mentally sick and it is only after the certificate of the Doctor and his opinion that the petitioner is fit to do his job; he wanted to join his duty. 5. From the impugned order, it appears that the Petitioner without any information to the Colliery Management, remained absent since 22.02.2011. During entire period of absence i.e., from 22.02.2011 till the date of initiation of the departmental proceedings, he has never written any application for leave or informed the Respondent-colliery Management that he is not well. 6. At this stage itself, it is pertinent to mention here that none of the relatives of the Petitioner or his friends ever informed the Colliery Management that he was suffering from mental sickness. When the 1st show-cause notice was issued, he did not reply to that and thereafter, a charge-sheet was issued with a specific charge i.e., “It has been reported that you have been absenting yourself from your duty without any information to the Colliery Management and without any sufficient cause since 22.02.2011. Your this action constitute misconduct under Clause 26.29 i.e., absence from duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause or overstaying beyond sanctioned leave, the aforesaid Certified Model Standing Order and even otherwise considering what is misconduct has to be reasonably construed”, to which the Petitioner did not submit any reply. 7. There is a specific finding of the Inquiry Officer that the Petitioner was continuously absenting from 22.02.2011. 7. There is a specific finding of the Inquiry Officer that the Petitioner was continuously absenting from 22.02.2011. The Inquiry Officer has mentioned that a written reply was given during the enquiry proceeding that he was not well and suffering from mental sickness and he was under treatment of Dr. Ashok Kumar Prasad. However, there is also specific finding that during the entire period of 10 years and/or the entire period of treatment, no any information was given to the Management. 8. It further transpires that it is only after issuance of 2nd show-cause notice, he has sent the entire prescription given by the Doctor. It is not a case that he was hospitalized in a mental hospital; rather, it is a case that he was suffering from some mental sickness and the Doctor has advised him for rest. Though, several prescriptions have been annexed with this writ application also, but the fact remains that none of these prescriptions was ever sent to the Colliery Management by the Petitioner or any one on his behalf. Therefore, it is very difficult to accept the submission of the Petitioner that impugned order of termination be quashed and the Respondents may be directed to allow him to resume his duty. 9. As a matter of fact, the prescriptions relied by the Petitioner itself indicates that he has been advised to continue medicines as he is improving satisfactorily. Even on the basis of these prescriptions, it cannot be construed that the mental condition of the Petitioner was of such nature that he was unable even to send application for leave and/or information regarding his sickness. As stated hereinabove, none of the relatives of the Petitioner or his friends ever informed the Colliery Management that he was suffering from mental sickness and neither any application for leave or the prescriptions of the Doctor were sent to the Management during entire period of sickness. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no sympathy can be shown with the Petitioner who remained absent for more than 10 years without any information, much less leave application. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ application deserves to be, and, is hereby, dismissed. However, there is no order to cost. 12. Pending IAs, if any, also stands closed.