JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, CJ. I.A. No. 10587 of 2024 1. For the reasons stated in the Interlocutory Application, which is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 124 days that has crept up in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Accordingly, the aforesaid delay is condoned. This Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 529 of 2024 3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 4. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7474 of 2023 filed by the writ petitioner-appellant for his reinstatement in service along with consequential benefits has been dismissed by the writ Court vide order dated 12.03.2024 constraining him to file this appeal. 5. The appellant was appointed and joined in the post of Cook in Indian Reserved Battalion-5, Gumla, Camp on 12.11.2010. 6. It was averred by the learned counsel for the appellant that soon after his joining his only son fell ill who was suffering from a complicated chronic disease and his condition became serious on several occasions due to which he was forced to remain absent from duty on several occasions as there was no one in his house to take care of his ailing son. He further averred that on 02.10.2012 the appellant received an emergency call from his home that the condition of his son was serious and then he hastily left his work place and got his son admitted in a hospital and went there for his treatment till 15.10.2013 but unfortunately, his son died during the treatment. It was lastly averred that the services of the appellant was illegally terminated on 28.09.2013 constraining the appellant to approach the writ Court by filing a writ petition for grant of the following substantive relief:- “For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding upon the respondents for Quashing of Memo No. 92 dated 28.09.2013 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure - 3) whereby and where under the petitioner has been dismissed from his service on post of Cook on allegation of unauthorized absence. And further prays that petitioner may be reinstated in his service with all consequential benefits.” 7. The learned writ Court after taking into consideration the past conduct of the appellant, more particularly the fact that the appellant had been subjected to four earlier departmental proceedings bearing Nos. And further prays that petitioner may be reinstated in his service with all consequential benefits.” 7. The learned writ Court after taking into consideration the past conduct of the appellant, more particularly the fact that the appellant had been subjected to four earlier departmental proceedings bearing Nos. 01 of 2011, 07 of 2011, 02 of 2012 and 25 of 2012 and there was no improvement in the conduct of the appellant and has otherwise taken 10 years time to challenge the dismissal order, dismissed the writ petition constraining the writ petitioner-appellant to file the instant appeal. 8. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the order passed by the learned writ Court is perverse and therefore, deserves to be set aside. 9. We find no merit in this contention as it is not in dispute that the appellant prior to enquiry which led to his dismissal had been departmentally proceeded on four occasions as detailed above, but there was no improvement in the conduct of the appellant as he continued to remain absent from duty. Even if it is assumed that the appellant was attending to his ailing son even then the appellant was required to obtain the necessary permission and leave before proceeding on leave. After all the appellant was a Government servant and cannot act like a private individual, who is free to act in a manner whatever he/she likes unless it is interdicted or prohibited by law. 10. The appellant being a Government servant was expected to discharge his duties with complete integrity which would take in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values [Refer to Union of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran , (2015) 2 SCC 610 ] . 11. In needs to reiteration that the public servants have to act strictly in the four corners of law and all the activities are governed by rules, regulations, instructions etc. Discipline is the hallmark of every employee and in case, an employee is not ready to subject himself/herself to discipline, then obviously, he is not only invites the wrath of his employer but is also liable to be proceeded at least departmentally. Discipline is the hallmark of every employee and in case, an employee is not ready to subject himself/herself to discipline, then obviously, he is not only invites the wrath of his employer but is also liable to be proceeded at least departmentally. Every employee must be loyal and disciplined towards his employer, which the appellant has failed to do so. 12. Reverting back to the facts, it is noticed that after the respondents have taken a lenient view in the earlier departmental proceedings initiated against him for being absent without any information, a proceeding for the 5 th attempt came to be initiated vide proceeding No. 27/2012 but the appellant emboldened by the leniency of the respondents on 4 (four) earlier occasions did not appear and as such ex-parte enquiry was conducted against the appellant as inspite of several intimation for submission of explanation, the appellant chose not to appear before the Enquiry Officer. Even notice had been published in the local newspaper. After completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 12.02.2013 before the disciplinary authority. 13. Here it needs to be mentioned that the respondents even sent one Sub Inspector of Police to the village of the appellant to serve the explanation who, in fact as a matter of fact, met the appellant, but the appellant told that he was busy in treatment of his son and did not join the service. The Sub Inspector found from the other villagers that the appellant was actually residing in the village and cultivating his land as is evident from the report submitted by the Sub Inspector on 05.06.2013 to the Commandant, I.R.B.-5, Camp Gumla at Dhurwa, Ranchi. 14. The appellant was once again given a chance by the disciplinary authority by issuing a show cause notice seeking explanation against the termination vide memo dated 12.07.2013 but the appellant still did not appear and the disciplinary authority after being satisfied from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and after going through the material on record dismissed the appellant from service. Even this order of dismissal was not challenged for over a decade and it was only on 22.12.2023 that the appellant for the first time approached the writ Court for the reliefs as quoted above. 15. Even this order of dismissal was not challenged for over a decade and it was only on 22.12.2023 that the appellant for the first time approached the writ Court for the reliefs as quoted above. 15. In the given facts and circumstances, we really wonder how the appellant can find fault with the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court where he has not even bothered to look back and ascertain the status of his employment for over a decade. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that it was only after service of information supplied to him under the RTI Act on 24.10.2018 the appellant learnt about the dismissal of his employment. Clearly the appellant has tried to cook up a cock and bull story. The appellant being a Government employee could have conveniently contacted his office all throughout the period to know about the status of his employment to join back his service with the respondents and in case he had been prevented from doing so, he could have conveniently assailed this action, but as observed above, the appellant did not choose to look back and try to contact his employer for his employment. Therefore, in such circumstances, the appellant cannot complain about dismissal of his services. 17. In view of the above discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.