the leave but the same was not granted and knowing fully well about the same the petitioner intentionally avoided attending her duties in the Bank as Branch Manager. As there was no permission granted to avail the privilege leave to the petitioner as such her absence was unauthorised. In support of his contention Mr. Dutta relies Mithilesh Singh V. Union of India reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309 and submits that mere application for granting of leave cannot be construed to be proper intimation for absence. Even if there was intimation, that by no such imagination construed to be a proper intimation for diluting of requirement of obtaining permission before absenting from the duty. Citing regulation 57 under Chapter VI of Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010 of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Mr. Dutta submits that the Regulation itself indicates that leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right and when the exigencies of the service of the Bank requires, the Competent Authority shall, by order in writing, refuse or revoke the leave of any description. Taking note of the sequence of the events as referred hereinabove, which culminates at the impugned order, Mr. Dutta submits that there is no illegality nor any vindictive attitude on the part of the respondent authorities while rejecting the petition for granting Privilege leave to the petitioner.
