JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is as to whether the Government is justified in invoking R.59(b) of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules for reducing the petitioner's pension by Rs.25/- after having found that the service of the petitioner has been thoroughly unsatisfactory due to his unauthorised absence for over thirteen years. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Survailance Worker in the Health Department on 12.11.1960 under the NMEP Scheme. Staffs of the said scheme were integrated with the staff of the department. Petitioner was absorbed as Basic Health Worker and later promoted as Family Planning Health Assistant. While so, he proceeded on leave for Haj Pilgrimage on 27.7.1977. Leave was granted only upto 17.1.1978. He did not rejoin duty due to certain pressing and unforeseen reasons. He applied for extension of leave from 18.1.1978. However, the same was not sanctioned. Petitioner returned to India after a period of more than 12 years and reported for duty in Primary Health Centre, Ambalappara in Palakkad District. He was ready to join duty. Later he attained the age of superannuation on 31.7.1992. Since petitioner was not given the retirement benefits he submitted application before the authorities for disbursement of the retirement benefits. The same was not granted since the period from 18.1.1978 to 31.7.1992 was not regularised. Petitioner then filed representation dated 18.1.1994 before the authorities. Government however passed an order regularising the period of absence from service from 21.7.1977 to 31.7.92 as leave without allowance under Appendix XII A part I K.S.R. It was however ordered that the period would not count for any service benefits including pension. The order was issued as a very special case in relaxation of rules and stated that the same would not be quoted as a precedent. The Government directed the Director of Health Services was directed to take necessary steps to settle the pensionary benefits of petitioner. Ext.PI is the order which was passed on 10.11.1994. 3. On 1st December 1994 first respondent issued show cause notice Ext.P2 to petitioner under R.59(b) Part III of the K.S.R. It was pointed out in Ext.P2 notice that petitioner had applied for leave for 180 days from 21.7.1977 and went abroad without prior sanction from Government. On expiry of the leave petitioner did not turn up for duty. 3. On 1st December 1994 first respondent issued show cause notice Ext.P2 to petitioner under R.59(b) Part III of the K.S.R. It was pointed out in Ext.P2 notice that petitioner had applied for leave for 180 days from 21.7.1977 and went abroad without prior sanction from Government. On expiry of the leave petitioner did not turn up for duty. Petitioner was on unauthorised absence for years and turned up for joining duty only during 1990. It was pointed out that petitioner's action reflects his attitude towards the State Government Service. Petitioner deserted his post at his convenience. Government on a review of the whole issue came to the conclusion, the service rendered by petitioner as Family Planning Health Assistant in the Health Services Department is quite unsatisfactory. Petitioner was therefore directed to show cause why an amount of Rs.25/- should not be reduced from his monthly pension, and why he should not be proceeded under R.59(b) of Part III K.S.R. 4. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 reply. According to the petitioner , since the Government vide Ext.PI order has already regularised the entire period of absence from 21.7.1997 to 31.7.1992 as leave without allowance and that the said period will not count for any service benefits it cannot be said that petitioner's service was unsatisfactory. There is nothing to show that his service was unsatisfactory. Consequently, it was contended that the reduction of the pension is arbitrary and disproportionate. 5. Government considered the explanation and rejected the same. Government took the view that the petitioner's unauthorised absence for a long period of 13 years would indicate his indifferent and negligent attitude towards the Government Service. Government therefore decided tentatively to reduce an amount of Rs.25/-from his monthly pension. Petitioner was also given opportunity to show cause. Petitioner made Ext.P5 representation against the said proposal and the same was rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 27.10.1996 whereby Government confirmed the decision to award punishment of reduction of pension by Rs.25/-. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order has approached this court. 6. It was contended by the counsel for petitioner that Government after having regularised the period of absence from 21.7.1977 to 31.7.1992 is not justified in holding the view that petitioner's service was unsatisfactory. According to him, there is no material to show that his service was unsatisfactory. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order has approached this court. 6. It was contended by the counsel for petitioner that Government after having regularised the period of absence from 21.7.1977 to 31.7.1992 is not justified in holding the view that petitioner's service was unsatisfactory. According to him, there is no material to show that his service was unsatisfactory. According to him, petitioner was granted Rs.378/-as pension for his 12 years approved service and consequently reduction of Rs.25/- from his pension is illegal, it is his further case that no proceedings were initiated against petitioner either departmentally or otherwise so as to fix any liability and consequently the decision to reduct Rs.25/- from his monthly pension is arbitrary and illegal. Counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of this Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala reported in 1994(1) K.L.T. 716 . The scope of R.59 Part III of K.S.R. came up for consideration in the above mentioned decision. The relevant rule is extracted below. "59. Award of full pension - (a) The full pension admissible under this rule is not to be given as a matter of course or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the government may make such reduction in the amounts as they think proper. As held by this court in the aforesaid decision the Government may suo motu even without a proposal from the Subordinate Authority pass orders in exercise of the power conferred on it under R.59. Government has to form a bona fide opinion that the service of the employee has not been thoroughly satisfactory after giving the employee concerned an opportunity to explain and vindicate himself against the proposal to form such an opinion as the basis for issuing an order under that rule. It is also intended by the rule the employee's service as a whole should be taken note of to form an opinion that his service as a whole failed to reach thoroughly satisfactory standard as a condition precedent for the exercise of power under the rule. If that be so, the enquiry or consideration which should precede the formation of the necessary opinion under R.59 should involved an assessment of merits and demerits or plus and minus points of the entire period of service. 7. If that be so, the enquiry or consideration which should precede the formation of the necessary opinion under R.59 should involved an assessment of merits and demerits or plus and minus points of the entire period of service. 7. The power of the Government to reduce pension under R.59(b) of Part III K.S.R. is not disputed. The question is whether that power was properly exercised so as to reduce the pension is the matter that has come up for consideration. R.59 specifically says that full pension admissible under this rule is not to be given as a matter of course or unless the service rendered has been really approved. If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the Government may make such reduction in the amounts as they think proper. R.59(b) does not provide for an enquiry before taken action. However person affected may be given opportunity of being heard in the interests of justice and an enquiry is not necessary for reducing pension under the said rule. Petitioner has no quarrel on those statutory provisions. 8. The fact that petitioner applied for 6 months leave, four months earned leave and two months half pay leave on 21.7.1977 is not disputed. The fact that he went abroad without prior sanction of the Government is also not disputed. The fact that after the expiry of the leave for 180 days on 21.7.1977 he had not reported for duty is also not disputed. The further fact that he remained on unauthorised absence is also not disputed. It is also admitted fact that he reported for duty only in the year 1990, that is after a period of 13 years. It was noticed that he was not admitted for duty and later on 31.7.1992 retired from service. On these facts the Government felt the petitioner shall not be given full pension. R.59(a) states that full pension admissible under this rule is not to be given as a matter of course unless the service rendered has been really approved. The conduct of the petitioner in not obtaining permission from the Government before leaving the country and unauthorised absence for over 13 years in his entire service would indicate, according to the Government, his service has not been thoroughly satisfied. While the petitioner was in service, as contended by the petitioner there is no disciplinary proceedings against him. The conduct of the petitioner in not obtaining permission from the Government before leaving the country and unauthorised absence for over 13 years in his entire service would indicate, according to the Government, his service has not been thoroughly satisfied. While the petitioner was in service, as contended by the petitioner there is no disciplinary proceedings against him. Taking into consideration the whole service, petitioners service may be satisfactory, but not thoroughly satisfactory. It is under the above mentioned circumstances Government decided not to give him the full pension, reduced by Rs. 25/-. 9. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that after having regularised the entire period of absence from 21.7.1997 to 31.7.1992 as leave without allowance and after having decided that the period will not be taken for service benefits including pension the Government is not justified to reduce the pension amount. The decision of the Government to regularise the entire period of absence from 21.7.1997 to 31.7.1992 as leave without allowance is not germane or relevant in the Government exercising power under R.59(b).Even if the entire period of service from 21.7.1997 to 31.7.1992 is treated as duty for all purposes it cannot be said that Government have no power to invoke R.59(b). R.59(b) has been incorporated in this case not to vary Ext.Pl order but only to assess as to whether the services were thoroughly satisfactory or not. The fact that he was on unauthorised leave over 13 years was not disputed. The conduct of the petitioner in leaving the Government service without permission of the Government and that too to keep away for over 13 years would indicate that the service rendered by the petitioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. From the facts available it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Government is unreasonable or illegal so as to be interfered by this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Original petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.