PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 27th June, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench (Circuit sitting at Ranchi) by which the petitioner's O.A. No. 62 of 2006 was dismissed. As per the brief facts of the case, the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Clerk on 25.07.1983 and then promoted to the post of Auditor on 01.01.1992 and further promoted to the post of Senior Auditor on 09.01.1995. According to the petitioner, his father was ill between 13.10.2000 to 15.12.2000 and being the only son living with him, the petitioner proceeded on leave by submitting an application for grant of leave for 13.10.2000 to 15.12.2000. This application was for grant of extraordinary leave. The petitioner again submitted an application for grant of half -pay leave from 21.12.2000 to 14.01.2001 along with an application for Earned Leave from 13th December, 2000 to 15.12.2000 and 33 days Extraordinary Leave from 15.01.2001 to 17.02.2001 in continuation of his previous applications. Then according to the petitioner on 20.02.2001, he submitted another application for leave for specialized treatment of his father at P.G.I. Lucknow and after returning from Lucknow after about eight and half months, he finally reported on December, 2001. According to the petitioner, his above leave applications were remained pending and had not been rejected. However, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 2.05.2002 on the ground of unauthorized leave and the petitioner was not allowed to resume duty. The petitioner then preferred O.A. No. 246 of 2002 for allowing him to resume duty. However, the enquiry against the petitioner continued and according to the petitioner he was not given intimation of date of any enquiry.
(3.) BE that as it may, ultimately the enquiry report was submitted on 14th February, 2003 and thereafter the petitioner's service was terminated on 7.1.2004. The aforesaid O.A. No. 246 of 2002 was then finally disposed of on 26.5.2004 giving liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the remedy of appeal against the order of dismissal. The petitioner then, without exhausting the remedy of appeal approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 912 of 2005 and the said petition was disposed of by this Court on 4.05.2005 permitting the petitioner to prefer appeal within three months and it was observed that now the petitioner will co -operate with the appellate authority. The petitioner then preferred appeal which was dismissed by ex -parte order dated 22.08.2005. Hence this writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner. 2003 (9) S.C.C 480{Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai) Allahabad Bank and Others}. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that although in the Rules of The Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, it is not specifically provided that an employee cannot leave the place of working without obtaining prior sanction of leave and it is also not mentioned as to what are the pre -requisites for leaving the place of employment for an employee, even then in the facts of the case punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be justified. ;