ORDER

1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 25.6.2004 (Annx.P/6), whereby, he was removed from the services and the order dated 22.12.2004 (Annex.P/8), whereby, his appeal against the order of removal has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in short are that petitioner was appointed by respondent No.2 as Process Writer on 14.7.1995. In the month of October 2003 (Annx.P/1), he was served with the notice along with the charge sheet, memo of charges, list of witnesses and other relevant documents to explain as to why a departmental inquiry should not be initiated against him on account of his misconduct of unauthorized leave and frequently remaining absent from duty. There were four charges against the petitioner. They are as under :-

“(i) Despite the fact that the petitioner was informed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karera on 10.4.2003 that no “casual leave” was available in his account, the petitioner made an application and unauthorizedly remained absent and availed casual leave for 23.6.2003, 24.6.2003 and 27.6.2003.

(ii) As per Appendix “A” of the charge memo, the petitioner remained absent for 28 days without any application whatsoever.

(