Judgment Hidayatullah ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the summary dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High court of jammu and Kashmir under the following circumstances. ( 2 ) THE appellant is a lady doctor who was appointed as an assistant Surgeon Grade 1 in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 30/11/1957 Before her appointment, she had been trained at glancy Medical College, Amritsar by attending a course of M. B. B. S. for which the State government paid her a stipend of Rs. 6,300. 00. An agreement was then entered into by the appellant with the State government that on the completion of her training she would serve the government for a period of seven years and further that if she did not to serve, the would return the money loaned to. There was also a condition that a penalty of Rs. 5,000. 00 might be imposed on her in a case she failed to perform her part of the obligation under the agreement. The appellant joined her Service on 4/12/1957. On 14/01/1961, she proceeded on 10 days casual leave. She did not report for duty but sent an application for leave for six months later she again applied for another six months leave and remained absent from duty. Leave was refused to her as it is obvious that it must not have been admissible to her to this extent under the rules of service since she had served only for three years. On 17/04/1962, the bent a letter of resignation in which she stated that as her husband who was an Assistant Accountant-General in the office of the Accountant- general, Jammu and Kashmir was transferred to the government of India service from 1/05/1958 and was posted at Simla outside Jammu and kashmir, her family circumstances did not permit her to continue in service under the Jammu and Kashmir government. She stated in that letter that she had been sending leave applications to the Superintendent of S. M. G. S Hospital at Jammu, but had always been informed that no leave was due to her and that the question of grant of further leave to her did not arise. She concluded the letter by saying that under the circumstances explained above. I am forced to lender my resignation from the Jammu and Kashmir government State Service. This may kindly be accepted. She concluded the letter by saying that under the circumstances explained above. I am forced to lender my resignation from the Jammu and Kashmir government State Service. This may kindly be accepted. " ( 3 ) ON 20/04/1962, a charge sheet was issued against her in which these fads were communicated and she was further informed that she, being temporary, could ordinarily get 3u days privilege leave and three months leave without pay whereas she had ever-stayed the period of leave admissible to her under the rules and was therefore being treated as absent from duty It was also pointed out that the had remained silent in response to letters which had been sent to her to rejoin service and also that she had been on more than one occasion told that there was no question of granting her leave The charge-sheet then concluded as follows :- "from what has been stated above, it is well established that she is on unauthorised absence and liable for loss of appointment in terms of Art 128 J. and K. , K. C. S. R. She would, therefore, explain "within 10 days as to why action may not be taken against her accordingly and why the amount of loan along with the amount of penalty may not be recovered from her for not serving the State government for seven years as per agreement executed by her. She should submit her explanation through the Superintendent, S. M. G. S. Hospital Jammu. " in reply to this memorandum, she sent her answer on 30/04/1962 in which she stated that she had every intention of serving the State government but the medical department had informed her that no leave was due to her and none could be sanctioned. She reiterated that her family circumstances as explained in her letter of resignation did not permit her to serve the State government. She also asked for a copy of the agreement to be able to reply to the portion of the notice in which claim for refund of the loan was made since she had not served the government for a period of seven years. ( 4 ) IT would appear from this that she had no explanation to offer nor did she ask for an enquiry. She reiterated her stand that she was not willing to serve the State. ( 4 ) IT would appear from this that she had no explanation to offer nor did she ask for an enquiry. She reiterated her stand that she was not willing to serve the State. Government and that she had already resigned her post on 17/04/1962. On receipt of this reply, the government of jammu and Kashmir passed an order by which she was dismissed from service with effect from 24/01/1961, i. e. , the date from which she was absent from duty, without proper leave. The appellant thereupon wrote a number of letters to the government in which she threatened the government with recovery of one lakh rupees as damages for wrongful termination of service, mental and physical troubles caused thereby, and also alleged that she was entitled to an opportunity of showing cause against the action passed under Art, 311 of the Constitution of India and under s. 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. She asked the state government to set aside the order of dismissal to make an apology for having passed the order and to publish the fact in the Gazette. She again reiterated that she should be relieved from service on the basis of her resignation of 17/04/1962 of which she enclosed a copy. ( 5 ) WE need not refer to the other communications which she sent to the government. However, on March 18th 1964 a Government order was issued and the order of 18/09/1962 which dismissed her was amended by a corrigendum u the effect that the word dismissal" or "dismissed" wherever they occurred in the previous order should be read as "discharged" or "discharge". On 16/06/1964, the appellant wrote a letter saying that she withdrew tier resignation and that she considered herself to be still in service. The government naturally did not take note of these letters and stood by the order which they bad passed earlier. ( 6 ) THE appellant thereupon filed a petition under S. 103 of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir which is similar to Art. 226 of the Indian constitution pleading that she had been deprived of the opportunity laid down by s. 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and that her dismissal and or/discharge was unconstitutional and liable to be set aside. The High court summarily dismissed the petition and the present appeal has been brought by special leave of this court. ( 7 ) IN this case the learned counsel for the appellant based himself upon the provision of s. 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and rules 30 and 32 of Kashmir Service Regulations. Vol 2 and r. 128 of the Kashmir Service Regulations Vol. 1. The main contention is that the appellant was visited with penalty involving a stigma upon her and that she was therefore entitled to an opportunity, first, of showing cause against the charge, and next, against the action proposed, i. e. , to say the penalty with was contemplated S. 126 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution in so far as it is material reads as follows :- "no such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. Provided that this Ss. shall not apply. x x x x" ( 8 ) THE section is in pari material with the provision of Art. 311 (2) of the indian Constitution but is not. It will be noticed that whereas under the Indian Constitution there is clear provision for an enquiry and an opportunity at the enquiry, and a second opportunity against the action proposed to be taken against the government servant, the jammu and Kashmir Constitution does not in terms state that there should be two such opportunities, it only says that the government servant should be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. Even if it be assumed for the purpose of his case that she was entitled to two opportunities ; namely, to meet the charge and then to show cause against the punishment proposed, the situation here is very different from the ordinary case of a government servant whose conduct is enquired into as a result of some dereliction of duty on his part. There the charge sets out the grounds on which the action is intended to be taken and the enquiry to be held. Here the facts were quite clear. There the charge sets out the grounds on which the action is intended to be taken and the enquiry to be held. Here the facts were quite clear. All that had happened was that having joined her service and taken 10 days casual leave the appellant absented herself from duty for a period of nearly a year She was informed about what had happened and her attention was drawn to Art. 128 of the Jammu and kashmir Service Regulations which provides that absence without or after the end of leave involves loss of appointment except as provided in Art- 203 (b), or when due to ill health, in which case the absentee must produce the certificate of a medical officer The Regulations also allow the government to give a grace of 7 days which is not the case here nor is such a course applicable to the facts. In other words, on her continued absence from service, she incurred loss of appointment The notice told her that she had so incurred loss of appointment and asked bar to say what she bad to say. ( 9 ) IN answer, she only sent her resignation or rather referred to her earlier resignation and stated that that may be accepted. Her statement that she was willing to serve the Jammu and Kashmir State government meant nothing This is an odd kind of service when the person remains absent without taking leave for a year. It appears to us that being faced with domestic life and also the problem of having to return the money with penalty she wished to steer a middle course, namely, to remain with the family and also to pretend to be in service This is not one of those cases in which the requirements of the Constitution compel the appointing authority to hold a full-dregs enquiry with witnesses and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which have been the foundation of the rulings given by this court. This is an exceptional case of complete dereliction of duty and a presence of serving without even attending a day on duty. In these circumstances, the charge sent to her sufficiently communicated to her what was to happen to her and she was also adequately given and opportunity of showing cause against the loss of appointment. This is an exceptional case of complete dereliction of duty and a presence of serving without even attending a day on duty. In these circumstances, the charge sent to her sufficiently communicated to her what was to happen to her and she was also adequately given and opportunity of showing cause against the loss of appointment. She chose to make no representation on this point and merely sent her resignation and asked it to be accepted. In our opinion, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in these circumstances, was justified in terminating her services it is true that they passed an order of dismissal which made a sting and it is "probable that if this had remained so, she would have been entitled to plead that she should be given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed as indeeds 126 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution also required. But this was corrected later by a corrigendum to which we have referred. In other words, she was treated as discharged from service when she bad loss of appointment and that in our opinion is the end of the matter. ( 10 ) OUR attention was drawn to a decision of this court reported in (1) Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan in which overstayal after the end of the leave was treated as not lending to termination of service and it was held that the person whose service was so terminated was entitled to notice and enquiry under Art 311 (2 ). That case is easily distinguishable. There the man had not remained absent deliberately "but was ill and had sent medical certificate showing his illness. He bad also stated that he would rejoin duty as soon as he would be able to do so. There was no charge sheet framed against him. What the government did was not to order his reinstatement when he joined and that was considered an act of dismissal without an enquiry, charge or notice to the person concerned. The case is easily distinguishable from this case where there bag been an sample opportunity to the appellant to show cause if she cared and whereafter being given an opportunity, she chose not to show any cause whatever. The case is easily distinguishable from this case where there bag been an sample opportunity to the appellant to show cause if she cared and whereafter being given an opportunity, she chose not to show any cause whatever. The other cases of Jammu and Kashmir High court such as those reported in (2)Daljit Singh v. Imspector-General of Police and (3)Sardar Harbans Singh v. The Transport Commissioner and another (3) are easily distinguishable. They proceed on their own facts. Those facts are not the facts which are to be found in this case. A case is an authority for what it decides and not for what can be deduced from it. This case is a special one of a person who proceeded on leave without any leave due to her and when even after being asked to rejoin, refrained from joining and sent her resignation to the authority. If there was no enquiry, it was because she did not court an enquiry. On the whole, therefore, we are quite satisfied that the Jammu and Kashmir High court was perfectly right in dismissing the writ petition without even issuing notice to the State. ( 11 ). It was contended before us. that in any event the penalty and the recovery of loan should not have been ordered. This is a matter of contract and we do not wish to say anything In this behalf for it should be the subject of litigation in a civil court. ( 12 ). The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. .