ORDER :

1. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure-P/10) and further for direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to work under respondent/department.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Electrical Helper (Category-I) on 19.03.1994 at Vishrampur. Subsequently he was promoted in Category-II and thereafter Category-III. It is further the case of the petitioner that he is alleged to have being absent from his duties regularly and the reasons for his absence was given as ‘due to illness’. The petitioner was said to have suffering from hernia and was under treatment at Government Hospital, Bilaspur, but when he could not recover from his ailment, he was admitted at the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Banki & Surakachhar Hospital at Korba, where the hernia operation of the petitioner was done and after the operation, he was given the fitness certificate by the doctors both the hospitals. Subsequently, the petitioner was also advised for 5 to 6 months rest, as a result of which departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before the Divisional Personnel Manager, SECL, Bilaspur for reallowing him on duties and the concerned authority allowed the petitioner to be taken on duties subject to pending enquiry against him. The show cause notice was also issued to him, to which the petitioner replied as well, but the Disciplinary Authority did not found the reply of the petitioner satisfactory dismissed him from his services. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which pending consideration and was not being decided. Therefore, he preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No. 1314/2012 before this Court and this Court Vide order dated 19.03.2012 directed to disposes of the appeal of the petitioner as early as possible. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner was considered and stood dismissed affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The petitioner was ill and was suffering from hernia and his treatment was also done at SECL Banki and Surakachhar Hospital, therefore, it was not deliberate on his part to remain absent from his duties. The petitioner had already intimated to the respondent Department regarding his illness, but despite the said fact his services have been dismissed. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has erred while deciding the appeal of the petitioner, as he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing and neither any show cause notice was issued to him nor any communication was sent to him on his given address. The petitioner have submitted all those medical documents of his treatment at various hospitals, but the said fact has been ignored and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Therefore, the petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to allow the petitioner to work under their department.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the after due enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of habitual absenteeism. The petitioner after his transfer from Bishrampur to Korba in the year 2005 started remaining absent from his duties and was regularly absent. He was not at all interested to serve at his new place of posting. The petitioner only served 5 days in the year 2005, 64 days in the year 2006, 1 day in January, 2007 and 3 days in February, 2007 and was continuously absent from 06.02.2007 and due to this misconduct of the petitioner, charge sheet was issued to the petit