On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no scope for interference with the impugned order in this writ petition. The case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with the charge-sheet and also with a notice for presenting himself before the enquiry officer was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. The petitioner had unauthorizedly remained absent from the year 1991 to 1996. The respondent-Railways had clearly stated in the reply filed before the Tribunal that the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner and the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt thereof. The petitioner did not deny this fact by filing an affidavit before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly held on a perusal of the record that the charge-sheet was duly served on the petitioner for his unauthorized absence for nearly six years. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was asked to appear before the enquiry officer in the month of May-1997 and July-1997. It is recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order that the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer after receipt of the notice in the month of May and July. Further, though the petitioner was asked to remain present before the enquiry officer in the month of October-1997, the petitioner did not present himself. No communication was received by the enquiry officer from the petitioner seeking an adjournment of the enquiry proceedings. In this background, the Tribunal rightly held that the enquiry was conducted exparte against the petitioner in the month of November-1997 and the report of the enquiry officer was duly served on the petitioner on 03/04.11.1997. It was found by the Tribunal that the petitioner failed to give a reply after service of the enquiry report and, hence, an order of removal of petitioner from service was passed. The petitioner failed to file a revision as provided under the Rules, though the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal found on an appreciation of
