Judgment :- K.G. Balakrishnan, J. The appellants are employees of State Bank of Travancore now working in its branch at Pathanamthitta. The first appellant is a native of Kottarakkara and the second appellant is a native of Thrissur. Elections for Grama Panchayat at Kottarakkara and Thrissur were held on 25.9.1995 which was declared as a public holiday by the State Government to enable the voters to cast their votes in the Grama Panchayat Election. But that day was not declared as a holiday under the Negotiable Instruments Act. These appellants who are voters went to their respective native places to cast their votes in Panchayat election. They did not avail Casual Leave, but they contended that they had exercised their privilege under Ext. P1 Circular issued by the State Bank of Travancore. As per Ext. P1 circular it is directed that if the election day is not declared as a holiday under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the employees will be given "time off' for casting votes on their request in writing. It is also stated in Ext. P1 that "time off allowed should be kept to the minimum possible so that the employee is not away from duty for more than necessary. According to the appellants they submitted a request in writing to the effect that they had been availing this "time off for casting their votes and on that basis they absented themselves from the place of employment on 25.9.1995. The Assistant General Manager of State Bank of Travancore issued Exts. P7 and P8 notices to these appellants alleging that they were absent from duty in the branch on 25.9.1995 and no leave application was submitted. These appellants were asked to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for their unauthorised absence on 25.9.1995. Exts. P7 and P8 were challenged by these appellants before the learned Single Judge. The contention raised by the appellants was that they were not un authonsedly absent but they availed the benefit of Ext. P1 issued by the State Bank of Travancore.. This argument was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The Original Petition was dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us. 2. We heard the appellants' counsel. The counsel for the appellants vehemently contended before us that these appellants availed the "time off permitted under Ext. P1 issued by the State Bank of Travancore.. This argument was not accepted by the learned Single Judge. The Original Petition was dismissed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us. 2. We heard the appellants' counsel. The counsel for the appellants vehemently contended before us that these appellants availed the "time off permitted under Ext. P1 and had gone to their native places and exercised their franchise in the Panchayat election held on 25.9.1995 and they shall not be treated as unauthonsedly absent in the office. It is argued by the appellants' counsel that the "time off permitted under Ext. P1 can cover the whole day of absence on duty. 3. We are unable to accept these contentions. As no holiday was declared as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Appellants were bound to attend to the duties on that day unless they have taken any form of leave. As per Ext. P1, they are given the privilege to cast their votes by availing some office time to enable them to cast their votes. It could only be assumed that the "time off can be availed only for a shorter period out of the working hours. It is particularly stated in Ext.P1 that the "time off allowed should be kept to the minimum so that the employees will not be away from duty for more than necessary. The counsel for the appellants therefore, contended that this would deny the right of the appellants to cast their votes. The appellants are not denied their right to exercise franchise. If they want to exercise their right, they can very well avail Casual Leave or any other form of leave that are available to them. 4. The learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in holding that Exts. P7 and P8 are not liable to be interfered with. The Writ Appeal is therefore, dismissed.