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 18-A and ordering deemed resignation is not legally valid. In the decision reported in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another (AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 42) submitted by learned counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Aoex Court held that in a Departmental proceeding, if alleoation of unauthorized the disci I ina h rl ve that the abs n wilf such findino, the absence will not amount to misconduct. nce from wt h permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it ot alw m nwt f There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospita lization. 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 decislon squarely applles to the instant case. Here, the petitioner failed to establish firstlv that the respondent remained una uthori sedt absent exceedino one vear without aoolvinq for leave and €ondlv, such nrrrih^rizad =hcona e was wilf t. Th r iha imouoned order oassed under G.O.Ms.No.122 General Administration ( OP.V ) De rtment dt: O1.O5.2014 was riohtlv set aside bv the Tribunal Wes ee no reason to tnterfer e with the said order-
