' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was a Reader in the Court of a Magistrate at Depalpur. On the charges that he did not reside at the station of his posting and was habitually late in attending the Court disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The inquiry officer found the charges established and submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner and then sent a show-cause notice to him. The petitioner failed to respond to .The notice but instead started applying for leave on medical grounds on the basis of certificates issued by private medical practitioners. He was called upon to appear~ before the Medical Superintendent but the communications sent to him in this regard remained unanswered as he was not available on the address that he had himself supplied to the office. In these circumstances the notices were published in the daily newspapers.
These publications failed to elicit any response from him. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner sent another show-cause notice to him at his last known address why action should not be taken against him for unauthorised absence. At last he submitted a reply. The Deputy Commissioner considered his reply and also heard him in person. He found his explanation unsatisfactory and removed him from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner but it was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal but that too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. This petition is barred by 11 days. For the reasons stated at the bar we condone the delay.
3. On merits we can find no ground for interfering with the judgment of the learned Tribunal. He remained absent from duty from 26-12-1982 to 4-7-1983. No doubt he had been applying for leave on medical grounds but the directions of his office that he should appear before the Medical Superintendent remained uncomplicd with as he was not available at the address he had given to the office. It also does not appear that he was so sick that he could not contact his office to find out as to what happened to his leave applications. This was clearly a case of gross indiscipline and one cannot avoid the impression that he had purposely become untraceable to prolong the disciplinary proceedings that were pending against him. This is not a fit case for interference by this Court. The petition is dismissed.