The department did not sanction leave or refer him to the Medical Board For examination. Inasmuch as the leave application dt: 26.11.2009 was within the period of one year, upon which no order of either sanctioning or refusing was passed. the invocation of drastic provision of F.R 1B-A and ordering deemed resignation is not legally valid. in the decision reported in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another (AIR 2072 SC (Supp) 42) submitted by learned counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Aoex Co urt held that in a DeDartmental oroce edi no. if alleqation of unauthorized absence from dutv is made, the disciplinarv authoritv is reout red to Drove that the absence is wilful. in absence of such findino, the absence wi ll not amount to misconduct. Absence from dutv wit ho t anv aDolication or orior permission mav amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not alwavs mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control Iike illness, accident, hospitalization, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure oF devotion to duty or his behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. The above decision squarely applies to the instant case. Here, the petitioner failed to establish firstly that the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent exceeding one year without applying for leave and secondly, such unauthorized absence was wilful. Therefore, the impugned order passed under G.O.Ms.No.122 General Administration (OP.V) Department dt: 01.05.2014 was
