Not Printed. As they are not necessary
Absence without leave : —For availing leave usually prior sanction is necessary. This is of course exception to casual leave and medical leave. Otherwise a Government servant must get his leave sanctioned in the first instance and then proceed. Even with regard to extension of leave, the Government servant must apply fairly in advance before the expiry of the leave originally granted. Absence without leave is also misconduct on the part of the employee for which action can be taken against him.
But where extraordinary leave is granted for a period of unauthorised absence it must be held that the employee's intentional absence has been regularised and no disciplinary action can be taken against him. G. Papaiah vs. Asst. Director , AIR 1976, A.P. 75.
Where an employee was granted leave initially and when further extensions of leave were refused the employee still stayed away on grounds of ill health, it was held that he had no right to remain away without necessary orders of the competent authority. The rules of natural justice cannot be relied upon to sustain such a right. Thus an employee cannot stay away from duty as of right without the sanction of the competent authority. State of Punjab vs. K. Murarilal Sehghal , 1966, Cr. LJ 968.
It has however been held that where an employee did not rejoin duty and submitted a letter praying extension of leave, he cannot be said to have abandoned his employment. State of Haryana vs. Phula Ram , 1973 (1) SLR 237 (P&H). Where however Government employee after the leave as he was not allowed to join the post to which he was entitled, it was held that for the period of his overstay he is entitled to salary. K.M. Subramaniam vs. State of Madras , AIR 1971, Mad. 202. Absence from duty without leave does not necessarily mean break in service of Government employee whose leave has been refused. Bodhraj vs. State of Haryana , 1972 SLR 475 (P&H) & Sukumar vs. State of West Bengal , (1977) 1 SLR 775 (Cal.). A person was removed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty without leave. Subsequently, his absence was regularised by granting leave to him. He contended that as the leave has been granted to him subsequent to his removal it must be held that he was not absent unauthorisedly and therefore his removal was bad. The Court rejected his argument and held that the subsequent act of the Government in granting leave to him was only intended to regularise the period of absence for some other purpose and cannot be understood to mean that his absence without leave was condoned. State of M.P. vs. Hari Hara Gopal , 1969, SLR 274 (SC).
Absence for continuous period of five years :—In Jai Shankar vs. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1966, SC 492, the Supreme Court has held that absence for a period exceeding five years is a fault on the part of the employee which may entitle Government in a suitable case to dismiss or remove him from service. Where the Government intends to proceed against the Government servant and dismiss him from service for his absence for a continuous period of five years or more, it is necessary to follow the procedure indicated in the C.C.A. Rules. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar , AIR 1971, SC 1409. In cases where the Government servant absents himself from duty wilfully without any grant of leave, such absence can be treated as ‘ dies non ’ under F.R. 18, apart from taking disciplinary action under the C.C.A. Rules, if the Government so think fit. For purposes of F.R. 18, the absence should be ‘ wilful ’ whereas continued absence due to physical or mental disability cannot be dealt with under this rule.
