1. - This writ petition is filed by applicant of OA No.258/2002 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 08th September 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (herein after for brevity called "the Tribunal") in aforementioned Original Application.

2. By the impugned order dated 08th September 2003, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the writ petitioner and declined to grant him any relief claimed therein.

3. Few facts need mention to appreciate the issue which lie in a narrow compass.

4. The writ petitioner was at all relevant time working as Extra departmental Branch Post Master, Sanganer. He however remained absent during the period 12.1.1995 to 27.2.1998 i.e. for almost 180 days. It was also noticed that taking advantage of his post and power, he withdrew certain money from one S.B. Account No.820276 belonging to one account holder without his knowledge. It is due to these two misconducts which were found major in nature, the writ petitioner was served with charge-sheet as per Rules. The petitioner contested the charge. The matter was dealt with by the Inquiry Officer. He held both the charges as made out. It was held that petitioner had remained absent from duty un-authorisedly and without any sanction for 180 days. It was also held that he had misappropriated the money from the holder's account. The appointing authority concurred with the findings of inquiry Officer and dismissed the petitioner from service. It is against this dismissal order, the writ petitioner filed OA out of which this writ petition arises before the Tribunal. By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the OA and in turn upheld the dismissal order giving rise to filing of the writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

5. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to grant relief prayed for by the petitioner while rejecting his Original Application.

6. This is how the Tribunal dealt with issue and decided against the writ petitioner.

"9. As to the charge of absence from duty for more than 180 days from 12.1.95 to 27.2.98, it is not disputed that applicant had not attended duties during that period. What is stated is that the applicant's mother was not well and therefore he had to proceed on leave from 12.1.95 but when he tried to join duty on 24.1.95, he was not permitted to join. It is stated that the applicant made attempts to join duty but he was not taken on duty.

9.1 As already stated, admittedly the applicant was not on duty from 12.1.95 to 27.2.98. It may be that because of pendency of another case relating to misappropriation, the applicant was restrained to join duty on 24.1.95, but there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had made attempts thereafter to join duty at any time. As a matter of fact, after he came to know that action was being taken against him for misappropriation of some amount, he avoided his presence in the office. The applicant has not placed on record any material, which could suggest that he made representation after 24.1.95 to take him on duty.

9.2 It is also not irrelevant to state that the applicant had proceeded on leave without sanction. It was the misconduct of the applicant when he proceeded on leave without sanction. Thereafter, he continued to remain absent for three years.

9.3 It is seen that in January 1995 some enquiry was being conducted against the applicant as there was some complaint against him that he had taken Indra Vikas Patra of the value of Rs. 25,000/-. A case has also been filed against the applicant in the District Consumer Forum Bhilwara by Smt. Sushila Devi for that amount and the matter is pending in the State Forum. In those circumstances, if the applicant was not allowed to join duty on 24.1.95, it cannot be said that the charge of remaining absent for more than 180 days was not proved against the applicant. The app