State Of Gujarat & 3 ­

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr. Japan V. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 19/07/2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9931 of 2012. Brief facts of the case as that, the appellant – original petitioner was serving as Typist in the respondent­Department at Rajpipla. The appellant – original petitioner applied for leave for the period from 16/11/2004 to 08/07/2005 for visiting his ailing wife who was undergoing treatment in U.S.A., which was granted. Pursuant thereto, the appellant – original petitioner left for U.S.A. However, he did not resume his duties after the leave period expired on 08/07/2005. He sought extension of leave by application dated 13/06/2005. Thereafter, the appellant ­ original petitioner made applications seeking extension of leave. In the meantime, it appears that the appellant – original petitioner was permitted to resume the duties on 07/10/2005 and was later transferred to some other place. Respondent no.2 sent a communication dated 13/04/2006 to the appellant – original petitioner at his residential address at Jambusar asking him to report for duty within 30 days at the transferred place. A show­cause notice was also issued to the him at his Jambusar address. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 21/09/2007, the appellant – original petitioner was dismissed from service. The said order was affirmed by communication dated 11/11/2010 addressed to the respondent­authority.

2. The learned Single Judge has considered the argument of the petitioner and material on record and arrived at the finding, which is recorded in Para 3 and 4 of the judgment, which are extracted below:

“3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for respondent no.1­State. It appears from the record that the petitioner had sought and was granted leave for the period from 16.11.2004 to 08.07.2005 for the purpose of visiting a foreign country. Before the aforesaid period of leave was to get over, the petitioner sent application dated 13.06.2005 seeking extension of leave for the period from 09.07.2005 to 09.09.2005, which was not sanctioned by the competent authority. However, subsequently, the petitioner was permitted to resume the duties on 07.10.2005. But, thereafter, the petitioner submitted application dated 07.12.2005 seeking leave without pay for the period from 08.12.2005 to 07.12.2008. Without waiting for the outcome of said application, the petitioner left the country on 07.12.2005 itself. The petitioner had also not sought permission of the respondent­Department before leaving the country. Thus, the petitioner had left the country unauthorizedly, without getting his leave sanctioned and without obtaining permission of the competent authority.

4. The respondent­Department had dispatched the order as also the show cause notice to the petitioner at his residential address that was available from his Service Book. The petitioner had not supplied the address of his place of stay in the foreign country. Therefore, the respondent­Department would not have any knowledge about the residential address of the petitioner in the foreign country. The petitioner had completely neglected the Department and had left the country without following proper procedure. Under the circumstances, the respondents were justified in passing the impugned order of dismissal and hence, I find no reasons to entertain the petition.”

3. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any reason to take contrary view. For the aforesaid reason, this Letters Patent Appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, along with Civil Application.

[ V. M. Sahai, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren