BHAIRAVIA, J. ( 1 ) [his Lordships after stating the facts of the case, further observed :]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) TO remain absent from the duly without permission, no doubt is a misconduct and to remain absent for 290 days without informing about the reasons or cause for remaining absent is a serious misconduct. So far as the administration of public institution like Bank is concerned, the employees are required to observe strict discipline of punctuality, efficiency, honesty. For maintaining discipline and for smooth running of administration, these are the basic code of conducts to be observed by every employee, may be small employee or a big officer and there should be no exception. It is not the fundamental right of an employee to remain absent without permission and that too without any just reason. However, in exigencies, employees may not be in a position to inform immediately to his employer for attending his duties on account of sudden sickness or accident, but at the earliest opportunity, the employee is required to inform his employer about the cause of his absence and if he is not in a position to report for duty, he must send his report of leave at the earliest opportunity, but he cannot take it granted that the leave without permission is a matter of right and it could be condoned at any time on resuming duty at his convenient time. Protection against the arbitrary action of the disciplinary authority is given under Art. 311 of the constitution of India, but that does not mean that the employee is, at liberty to take law in his own hand and under the guise of principles of natural justice, his misconduct could be forgiven. If that liberty is extended to the employees, it would be difficult to maintain discipline in the public institutions and one cannot expect good administration from public institutions like Bank. However, the employee is also human being and in the time of exigencies and emergency and for the circumstances beyond his control, he may fail to report for duty without informing his master. But that is exception and not the Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . However, the employee is also human being and in the time of exigencies and emergency and for the circumstances beyond his control, he may fail to report for duty without informing his master. But that is exception and not the Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . But before taking extreme disciplinary action of terminating services of such delinquent which amounts to economic death of an employee, he must be heard and he should be given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be inflicted extreme penalty of removal or dismissal for the misconduct of remaining absent without permission for a pretty long time. Further, authority is required to consider whether extreme penalty of termination is adequate punishment to the delinquent who has committed misconduct of remaining absent without permission for 290 days. As discussed above, Supreme court, in the case of Jai Shankar v. State ( AIR 1966 SC 492 ) (supra) has taken view that there cannot be any automatic termination, (Rest of the Judgment is not material for the Reports.) .