Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aashish Misra, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed in the subordinate judiciary as Routine Grade Clerk in 1991 and was posted as Copyist in the Judgeship of Fatehgarh. Subsequently, in the year 2003, he was promoted as Senior Clerk and since then he was discharging his duties on the post. He applied for casual leave for 9.7.2007, while posted in the judgeship of Farrukhabad. The said leave was duly sanctioned, accordingly, he proceeded to leave. However he did not return back till 19th July, 2007.

3. In the integrum on 13.7.2007, the Reader of the concerned Court, where he was deputed submitted a report about his absence to the District Judge. On 16.7.2007 petitioner;’s explanation was called regarding his absence which was submitted on 28.7.2007. The said explanation was not found satisfactory, accordingly by order dated 31.7.2007 the District Judge ordered initiation of regular disciplinary proceedings. Consequently on 9.8.2007 a charge-sheet, approved by the District Judge was given to the petitioner by the inquiry officer regarding his absence from 10.7.2007 to 19.7.2007. This was the only charge mentioned in the charge-sheet and it stated that it demonstrated lack of devotion on his part and violation of Rule 3 of U.P. Conduct Rules, 1976 read with relevant disciplinary proceedings Rules. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 13.8.2007. Thereafter inquiry report is said to have been submitted on 3.9.2007. Based on the inquiry report, a show-cause notice dated 23.11.2007 was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 23.11.2007. Thereafter, impugned order of removal from service was passed on 30.11.2007 by the District Judge Farukkhabad with reference to Rule 4 (i)(g) of U.P. Subordinate Courts Staff (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1976.

4. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court on the administrative side on 14.6.2007.

5. Being aggrieved this writ petition has been filed.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned major punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner without conducting any inquiry and without fixing any date, time and place for such inquiry. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 5 of the Service Rules, 1976, which according to him had been violated. Even otherwise, the submission was that the Principle of Natural Justice and right of reasonable opportunity to defend had been violated as no regular inquiry was made nor was the petitioner allowed to participate in any such inquiry..

7. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the punishment imposed was dis-proportionate to the charges and was too harsh. It was also contended that even the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the relevant aspects of the matter and dismissed the appeal summarily just as disciplinary authority had passed the punishment order.

8. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents invited the attention of the Court to the past conduct of the petitioner as narrated in the order of punishment dated 30th November, 2007 to submit that ever since his initial appointment, the petitioner was a habitual absentee and even was visited with several orders of punishment and adverse entries. He further submitted that absence for 9-10 days from the Court was a grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner for which he was rightly removed from service. He also invited attention of the Court to the reply dated 13.8.2007 submitted by the petitioner to submit that it contains no valid explanation for the absence.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused records.

10. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner contains only one charge i.e. his unauthorized absence from