MANJU GOEL, J.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1/4/2002 passed by respondent No. 2, the General Manager of Ashoka Hotel, terminating the petitioner from the service of respondent No. 2. The order of 1/4/2002 under challenge gives the following facts: the petitioner Vijay Pal was issued a charge-sheet on 13/6/2001 for absenting from duties unauthorizedly for 129 days during the year 2000. An enquiry was conducted by Mr. S. Paul, Enquiry Officer. On receipt of a copy of the enquiry report notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why his service should not be terminated. Shri Arun George, general Manager (A) of respondent No. 2 agreed with the finding of the enquiry Officer and held that the charges levelled against Vijay pal, the petitioner, to have been conclusively proved in the enquiry. He found no substance in the reply of the petitioner dated 31/1/2002. Finding that the charge amounted to grave misconduct and taking into consideration all extenuating and aggravating factors, he imposed the punishment of termination of services of the petitioner with immediate effect.

( 2 ) THIS order was challenged on various grounds. When the petition came up for hearing on 9. 9. 2003 the ground that was found to have any substance was that similarly placed employees with even larger numbers of absence from duties were awarded only minor punishment like stop Page of one increment or two while the petitioner was visited with the extreme penalty of removal from service. On 9. 9. 2003 this court passed the following order:

"cw 5796/2003. Notice to the respondents limited to the allegation of discrimination as contended by petitioner at pages 39-40 of the paper-book, with regard to other similarly situated workmen, to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, on filing of process fee by regd. AD cover as well as by ordinary process, returnable on 22. 01. 2004. "

( 3 ) THIS being the scope of the writ petition, the only thing that has to be examined now is whether the order of termination from service suffers from the defect of discrimination. At pages 39-40 referred to in the above order, the petitioner has named certain employees and has given details of the number of days they had been absent and the punishment inflicted on them. The list is as under: Sr. Name Days Punishment 1. Ashok Kumar (maintenance) 600 2 increment stopped 2. M/s. Bhugeshwar 65 5" 3. Mrs. Lajwanti 112 1" 4. Galwaries (LM) 115 2" 5. K. P. Natrajan 55 3" 6. Pritam Singh (Kitchen) 135 Warning"

( 4 ) THE respondent in its counter affidavit has given the details of the circumstances in which the other employees mentioned above were given lesser punishments. It is stated that the past record of the petitioner was not clean. There were two previous occasions when the petitioner was taken to task:

(a) He was issued Fault and Guidance Slips dated 17. 5. 1978. (b) He was awarded the punishment of stop Page of two annual increments with cumulative effect, vide orders dated 9. 2. 81 in the matter of charge sheet issued to him on 26. 3. 80 for wilful insubordination and carry on his private business. "

( 5 ) AS regards other employees it is stated that their past records were clean except for Mr. K. P. Natrajan who was punished with stop Page of three increments with cumulative effect for drunkenness vide an order dated 22. 6. 2001. He had also received fault and guidance slips. For the absence of 135 days K. P. Natrajan was awarded punishment of stop Page of three annual increments with cumulative effect.

( 6 ) THE respondent has filed a list of 15 employees whose services were terminated in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 for the misconduct or absentism of lesser number of days. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner's case when compared with these 15 employees does not call for any interference from this court.

( 7 ) IN the first place even if the offence of the petitioner and that of mr