Honble MADAN, J. – The petitioner who is an ex-constable from the Police Department, Bharatpur (Raj.) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his termination from service. (2). Vide the impugned order of termination dt. 17.4.79 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur (respondent No.4) on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sipoy on 17.11.94 and since then he had been continuously working with the Department and that there was no adverse remark in his service dossier. On 4.10.1975, when the petitioner was posted as Sipoy in the Accounts Branch at Bharatpur, he had fallen sick and had taken two days casual leave and resumed his duties on 6.10.1975 but on account of sickness he failed to attend the duty on that day. He again applied for one day C.L. on 8.10.1975 since 6th & 7th October 75 happened to be gazetted holidays and 9th & 10th October 75 and from 11th to 14th October 75 were also declared holidays on account of `Dashera festival. Due to his continuous sickness, the petitioner again had to apply for medical leave w.e.f. 15.10.75 to 13.11.75, 14.11.75 to 13.12.75, 14.12.75 to 13.3.76 & 14.3.76 to 23.4.76. The petitioner had also submitted relevant medical certificates in the office of respondent No.4. It has further been contended that during the aforesaid period, an F.I.R. No. 297/75 was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur on 8.11.75 for an offence U/s. 409 I.P.C. on the basis of audit report. After completion of investigation, the police filed the Challan against the petitioner in the concerned Court. As a result thereof, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dt. 19.11.75 passed by respondent No.4. Charge-sheet was served on the petitioner regarding his absence from duty w.e.f. 8.10.1975 to 9.6.1978 for 976 days to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. Enquiry was conducted in the matter by the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and consequently respondent No.4 vide the impugned order dt. 17.4.79 passed the order of dismissal from service against the petitioner vide Annexure-2. It was mentioned in the said order that the petitioner will be entitled to subsistence allowance from 8.10.75 to 9.6.78. (2). 17.4.79 passed the order of dismissal from service against the petitioner vide Annexure-2. It was mentioned in the said order that the petitioner will be entitled to subsistence allowance from 8.10.75 to 9.6.78. (2). It has further been contended by the petitioner that another F.I.R. came to be lodged against the petitioner by the Department vide F.I.R. No. 207/78, which was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur on 4.5.78 (second F.I.R.) for offence U/s. 409 I.P.C. After completing the investigation, the police filed the Challan in the concerned Court U/s. 408 I.P.C., the charge was also framed against the petitioner. That being aggrieved by the order dt. 17.4.79 (Annexure-2), the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur on 17.6.79, which was heard and decided by the appellate authority viz., D.I.G., Jaipur Range, Jaipur and the said authority visw its a order dt. 27.12.79 dismissed the said appeal vide (Annexures 3 & 4) respectively. Thereafter the petitioner preferred yet another appeal before the Commissioner (Home Department) against the aforesaid order dt. 27.12.79 and the Deputy Secretary (Home) vide his communication dt. 25.4.80 informed the petitioner that the provision of filing the second appeal stands abrogated and it is open to the petitioner if so advised to prefer a review petition before the Governor of Rajasthan vide (Annexure-5). In such circumstan- ces, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Honble Governor of Rajasthan on 5.5.80. It has further been contended that thereafter the petitioner made several representations to the Office of Honble Governor for early decision in the matter and the last such representation was made by him on 30.10.90. Till date no decision has been taken in the matter of review petition by the Honble Governor of Rajas- than and hence the petitioner has been constrained to move to this Court by way of this writ petition. The petitioner has further contended that with regard to the F.I.R. No. 297/75 (First F.I.R.) the matter has since been heard and finally decided by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.) No.1, Bharatpur, who vide his order dt 16.4.94, acquitted the petitioner from charge for offence u/s. 409 IPC vide (Annexure 8). No appeal was preferred by the respondents against the said order of acquittal. Chief Judicial Magistrate (A.C.J.M.) No.1, Bharatpur, who vide his order dt 16.4.94, acquitted the petitioner from charge for offence u/s. 409 IPC vide (Annexure 8). No appeal was preferred by the respondents against the said order of acquittal. As regards the F.I.R. No. 207/78 (Second F.I.R.) for which the Challan for offence U/s. 408 I.P.C. was filed in the court of learned A.M.J.M. No.1, Bharatpur, the said Court vide its order dt. 3.9.90 also acquitted the petitioner for the said offence U/s. 408 IPC in case No. 317/83 vide (Annexure 9). Thus the peti- petitioner stands acquitted in respect of both the offences U/s. 408 & 409 I.P.C. respectively from the concerned courts and no appeal was preferred by the respondents challenging his acquittal before the appellate court. (3). It has further been contended by the petitioner that F.I.R. No. 297/95 for offence U/s. 409 I.P.C. relates to embazzlement for the year 1971-1975 and during the said period the petitioner was posted in the Accounts Branch of the office of respondent No.4. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 8.11.75 and FIR was registered in the case and thoroughly investigated by the investigating agency. An enquiry officer was appointed by the respondents, who conducted the enquiry and found that the petitioner had remained absent from duty without obtaining sanction of the competent authority. The petitioner has attributed malafides to the respondents in having passed the impugned order of termination of the petitioner since they were well aware that the petitioner had been exonerated in respect of the offence arising out of the above referred F.I.Rs. Thereafter the petitioner sent a legal notice for demand of justice to the respondents on 20.5.94 to which no reply has been received by the petitioner till date. (4). The petitioner has consequently prayed for quashing the order of dismissal (dt. 17.4.79) and has further sought a direction from this Court for being treated as in continuous service of the Department without any brake with all consequential benefits such as increments, promotion, pension, gratuity etc. (5). In the reply to the writ petition, filed by the respondents, it has been contended that the petitioner had applied for leave from 8.10.75 to 10.10.75 and had also sent the medical for 14.11.75 to 20.11.75, 29.11.75 to 13.2.76 but he had proceeded on leave without getting the leave sanctioned. (6). (5). In the reply to the writ petition, filed by the respondents, it has been contended that the petitioner had applied for leave from 8.10.75 to 10.10.75 and had also sent the medical for 14.11.75 to 20.11.75, 29.11.75 to 13.2.76 but he had proceeded on leave without getting the leave sanctioned. (6). It has further been contended that the petitioner remained wilfully absent from duty on 7.10.75 to 8.6.78 i.e. for 972 days and joined the duty w.e.f. 9.6.78. In these circumstances proceedings under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules were initiated against him, which resulted in his dismissal from service vide Order No. 711 dt. 17.4.79. It has further been contended in the reply that a Criminal Case No. 297/75 U/s. 409 I.P.C. was registered with P.S. Bharatpur on 8.11.75 and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.11.75. Since the petitioner had wilfully absented himself from duty from 8.10.75 to 9.6.78 i.e. for 976 days, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, as a result of which he was dismissed from service. Hence it has been contended that it is irrelevant for the petitioner to connect the criminal case with the matter of wilful absence from duty, which in fact is a separate cause of action for mis-conduct on the part of the petitioner for which he has been dismissed. It has further been contended that the order under challenge is dated 17.4.79 while the writ petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court belatedly with in-ordinate delay of over 15 years for which there is no justification or any explanation of the petitioner on the record explaining the delay. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the impugned order as well as rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules on the subject. (7). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the impugned order as well as rule 86(3) of the Rajasthan Service Rules on the subject. I am of the considered opinion that since the petitioner remained absent from duty for the period 8.10.75 to 9.6.78 i.e. for 976 days in all for which departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner in accordance with Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules and the petitioner was found wilfully absent from duty without obtaining necessary sanction of the Competent Authority and as a result of which the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner on 17.4.79 and hence no fault can found with the said order. It will be appropriate to refer to Rule 86(3) of the R.S.R., which provides as under :– ``Absence after expiry of leave :– (1) A Government servant who is absent from duty without leave or before leave applied for has been sanctioned by the competent authority shall be treated to have remai- ned wilfully absent from duty; and such absence shall amount to interruption in service involving forfeiture of past service unless, on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the absence is regularised by grant of leave due or is commuted into extra-ordinary leave by the authority competent to sanction leave. (2)(a) A Government servant who remains absent from duty after the expiry of the sanctioned leave or after communication of refusal of extension of leave is not entitled to any pay and allowances for the period of such absence and then period of such absence shall be commuted into extraordinary leave unless on satisfactory reasons being furnished, the period of absence is regularised by grant of leave due by the authority to grant leave. (b) Wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-rules (1) and (2) above the disciplinary authority may initiate departmental proceedings under Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules against a Government servant who wilfully remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of wilful absence from duty is proved against him, he may be removed from service. (8). (8). During the course of heaving, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any material on the record which would determine as to whether the petitioner had obtained any sanction from the Competent Authority on account of his absence from duty for the aforesaid period, which as per Rule 86 has to be treated as interruption in service involving forfeiture of the past service since no satisfactory reasons have been furnished by the petitioner either with regard to his absence from duty nor any evidence has been placed on the record regarding the sanction of the leave by the Competent Authority in this regard. Hence it is a case of wilful absence from duty and as per the Rule 86(3) of the R.S.R. : a government servant who wilfully remains absent from duty for a period exceeding one month and if the charge of wilful absence from duty has been proved against him, he may be removed from service. Hence the only logical conclusion which emerges is that since the petitioner has not been able to render any satisfactory explanation on the record with regard to his absence from duty for the aforesaid period in question i.e. 8.10.75 to 9.6.78 and as to whether he had applied for leave and obtained sanction of the Competent Authority for the said period for which departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and as a result of which the impugned order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner. (9). In view of the above observations on merits I am of the view that the peti- tioner has no case for interference by this Court. I am further of the view that the impugned order under challenge was passed on 17.4.79, while the writ petition was filed in this Court on 15.7.94 with in-ordinate delay of over 15 years for which no reasonable explanation has been furnished by the petitioner on the record explaining the said delay. (10). I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Babu Lal Tatiwal vs. State & Anr. (1), wherein identical question had arisen for consideration of this Court. (10). I am fortified in my observations from the judgment of this Court in the matter of Babu Lal Tatiwal vs. State & Anr. (1), wherein identical question had arisen for consideration of this Court. This was a case where a Government Servant had wilfully absented himself from duty since the leave for the relevant period of alleged absence was neither applied for nor sanctioned by the Competent Authori- ty. Since the period of absence from duty had exceeded one month, removal of the petitioner from service in accordance with Rule 86 (3) of R.S.R. was held proper. In my view the ratio of the said decision is fully applicable to this case. I am further of the opinion that this is not a case, which calls for any lenient view being taken in favour of the petitioner on the quantum of penalty. I am further of the view that the allegation of malafides and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents has no relevance or basis at all. (11). Thus on merits, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of termination dt. 17.4.79 (Annexure 2). (12). However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that since the petitioner has already been acquitted in respect of charges levelled against him U/ss. 409 I.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 297/75, at P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur and also for an offence U/s. 408 I.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 207/78 at P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur and since no appeal was preferred by the State against the acquittal of the petitioner and also the fact that since the petitioner has already retired from service on attai- ning the age of superannuation. I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the post-retiral benefits such as pension, gratuity and other allowances, if any, which may be admissible to the petitioner in accordance with rules. Since the period of absence from duty from 8.10.75 to 9.7.78 was without obtaining the prior sanction of the Competent Authority, the said period cannot be considered as a period on duty and for which the petitioner cannot be held entitled for benefit of any increments, promotion or any other consequential benefits in lieu thereof. (13). The writ petition is consequently disposed of with above directions. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.