S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) EVERYDAY, I find that in substantial number of cases, which are placed on the Board, reply to the special civil applications have not been filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat and its officers. Not only this, in substantial number of cases, Government advocates are not appearing as they are not having the papers of the matters. This is exactly a case of that category. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, it is an old matter and hearing of the same cannot be deferred only on the ground or the reason that the State of Gujarat and its officers have not chosen to file reply to the special civil application as well as nobody is present on their behalf in this Court even to make oral submissions. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the special civil application. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Malaria Surveillance Inspector on 2-8-1960 in the office of the respondent No. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed 20 years of qualifying services on 30th August, 1980. The State of Gujarat vide its Finance Department resolution dated 3-2-1978 formulated a scheme by which the Government servants who have put in 20 years qualifying services were permitted to retire voluntarily from the services after giving three months notice to the appointing authority. ( 5 ) RULE 41 of the Pension Rules, 1950 as substituted by the Government notification, Finance Department dated 1-5-1971 defines the qualifying services in respect of the persons retiring on or after 1-4-1966. This Rule has been reproduced by the petitioner in para-4 of the special civil application. ( 6 ) THE petitioner, as per his case, due to illness of his wife, remained absent from duty for the period from 1-1-1979 to 12-1-1982. He reported for his duty on 13-1-1982 and he joined at P. H. C. , Mangadh on 19-1-1982. The petitioner sent a notice on 21-1-1982 for permission to him to voluntarily retire from the services w. e. f 20-4-1982. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was relieved from the post on 20-4-1982. Thereafter, the petitioner made claim for giving retiral benefits by filing representations from time to time. The petitioner sent a notice on 21-1-1982 for permission to him to voluntarily retire from the services w. e. f 20-4-1982. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was relieved from the post on 20-4-1982. Thereafter, the petitioner made claim for giving retiral benefits by filing representations from time to time. Ultimately, under the order dated 11-1-1990 his period of absence from 1-1-1979 to 21-1-1982 i. e. for 1114 days was ordered to be treated as absent from duty i. e. unauthorized absent. Under the order of the even date, it is informed to the petitioner that his application for voluntary retirement, submitted on 21-1-1982 cannot be accepted as his qualifying services fall short of 20 years. ( 7 ) THESE orders are passed by the respondents after filing of this special civil application by the petitioner in this court. The petitioner by amendment of this special civil application prayed for quashing of these two orders. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was having the qualifying services to his credit to go on voluntary retirement and in fact his application for voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have been granted as he has been relieved from the services. In these facts, the respondents should have given him all the retiral benefits but instead of giving him the same, when he approached to this court, the orders have been passed under which his period of absence was ordered to be treated as unauthorized absence and his application for voluntary retirement was rejected. These two orders are bad in law as the petitioner has not been given any notice or opportunity of hearing before passing of the same by the respondents. It has next been contended that the petitioner remained absent for the reason that his wife was ill at London and he remained there to attend her. The petitioner from time to time sent leave applications to the respondents for sanction thereof. Instead of sanctioning the leave of the petitioner, the respondents have passed the orders which speaks for their mala fide action as well as arbitrary and perverse approach in the matter. Instead of doing justice with the low paid employee, the respondents have made an attempt to take his livelihood of old age i. e. pension and other retirementary benefits. Instead of sanctioning the leave of the petitioner, the respondents have passed the orders which speaks for their mala fide action as well as arbitrary and perverse approach in the matter. Instead of doing justice with the low paid employee, the respondents have made an attempt to take his livelihood of old age i. e. pension and other retirementary benefits. It has next been contended that during the notice period given by the petitioner for voluntary retirement, the respondents have not taken any decision not to accept the same and after expiry of the period of notice, this voluntary retirement application is deemed to have been allowed and the orders passed in later point of time are of no legal force. ( 9 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 10 ) FROM the special civil application I find that originally the petitioner filed documents annexures, A, B, C, D and E. After amendment of the special civil application I find that further documents have been filed as annexures I, J, K, L and M. I do not find any reference to the documents annexures I, J, K, L and M in the amended petition. ( 11 ) THE petitioner remained absent from duty from 1-1-1979 to 12-1-1982. He stated that he had gone to London. Though in the special civil application the petitioner stated that he submitted leave applications from time to time but he has not produced on the record of this special civil application any proof of sending these applications. Not only this, before petitioner proceeded for London he should have taken prior permission of the Department. The petitioner has not come up with the case that he has applied for giving the permission to him to go to London. It is a clear case where the petitioner, a Government servant has shown scant disregard and total disobedience to the rules, regulations and other service conditions. Even if it is taken that his wife was ill and his presence was necessary at London, the petitioner should have taken the permission of the Department to leave the country. Contrary to it, the petitioner without taking prior permission and leave, left the country and remained absent from duty for the period from 1-1-1979 to 12-1-1982 i. e. for more than three years. Contrary to it, the petitioner without taking prior permission and leave, left the country and remained absent from duty for the period from 1-1-1979 to 12-1-1982 i. e. for more than three years. For this long absence, the petitioner has not furnished any explanation. The petitioner, on the record of this special civil application, has not produced any documentary evidence to show that his wife was seriously ill. For this long absence, the petitioner has to prove by producing on record that the sickness of his wife was of such a serious nature which justifies his staying at London for this long period. ( 12 ) FROM the facts of this case, it appears that the petitioner has gone for his settlement and not for the sickness of his wife and, more so, in the absence of any documentary evidence this absence for more than three years from duty was not necessary. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised a technical ground that the order has been passed treating the aforesaid period as unauthorised absent from duty without notice or opportunity of hearing but only on this ground this order of the respondents cannot be quashed and set aside. There may be some breach of principles of natural justice but unless and until the petitioner satisfies prima-facie to this court that he has some reasonable and plausible explanation for this long absent from duty, the court may consider it to be a case where the matter would have been remanded back for fresh consideration. ( 14 ) ON the record of this special civil application, at the cost of repetition it is stated, the petitioner has not produced any material to show any justification for his long absence from duty. In the absence of any material, explanation and justification for this long absence of the petitioner from duty, only inference flows therefrom is that it is a clear case where the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty. For this unauthorised absence, though long back the disciplinary action could have been taken, for the reasons best known to the respondents, it has not been done. It is seen everyday that employees are going abroad and thereafter are returning back to country for taking service benefits by praying for voluntary retirement. For this unauthorised absence, though long back the disciplinary action could have been taken, for the reasons best known to the respondents, it has not been done. It is seen everyday that employees are going abroad and thereafter are returning back to country for taking service benefits by praying for voluntary retirement. From the facts of this case, it is clearly borne out that the petitioner decided to resume his duties only to get the benefits of retirement but he was not interested in service. He returned back to service when as per his calculation, he completed 24 years of services i. e. including his absent period. He joined the services on 20-1-1982 and on the very next date, he applied for the voluntary retirement. He has not waited for any order and on 20-4-1982 he got himself relieved from the services. From these facts, nothing now remains in doubt that it is a deliberate act on the part of the petitioner to join the services if possible or manageable to get all the retiral benefits. The conduct of the litigant who seeks relief from this court under its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction is of utmost importance and relevant and where this court is satisfied that it is a dubious conduct or with some ulterior motive the petition has been filed certainly it may decline to grant any relief to the litigant concerned. ( 15 ) NOT only this, the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be granted to those employees who are law abiding, disciplined, faithful and honest to duties. However, a Government servant is supposed to discharge his duties honestly and for the welfare and well-being of the citizens. If Government servant acts contrary to all what is required to be done by him and further to get undue advantage of the services, this court may decline to grant relief to him. ( 16 ) THE present case is clearly of that category where the petitioner appears to have gone to London for better employment and he remained there for three years and then for some time he came here only with the object and purpose to manage to get pension for his services. This long absence of the petitioner from services for which he has not furnished any explanation has rightly been taken to be an unauthorised absent from duty. This long absence of the petitioner from services for which he has not furnished any explanation has rightly been taken to be an unauthorised absent from duty. This period of unauthorised absent from duty cannot be taken to be a period spent on duty and the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that after excluding this period, the petitioner does not have to his credit 20 years services on 2 1/01/1982 or on 20th April, 1982. The petitioner was not eligible for voluntary retirement and rightly the respondents have not accepted his application for voluntary retirement. The doctrine of deemed acceptance of notice of voluntary retirement no doubt applies in many of the cases but each case has to be decided on its own facts. However, this abstract doctrine of deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement notice where no specific order has been passed, is applied to all the cases then it will open floodgates for manipulation, corruption etc. . Many unscrupulous employees like the petitioner will take undue advantage of this doctrine. The State of Gujarat and its Officers are unaware of many of the important things. They permit many things to go unattended. They ignore many important things and it is not difficult to manage many things by the employees. In the state of affairs as prevailing in the State of Gujarat otherwise also if on such doctrine the benefits are being given then certainly it will unnecessarily burden the public exchequer and secondly it will result in giving undue benefits to these employees who are not law abiding and acting contrary to the interest of the services. ( 17 ) THERE is yet another reason for which this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner remained unauthorised absent for this long period and if the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement of the petitioner is accepted then as a result thereof this unauthorised absent period will also stand regularized, which is not permissible nor it can be permitted. The petitioner remained unauthorised absent for this long period and if the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement of the petitioner is accepted then as a result thereof this unauthorised absent period will also stand regularized, which is not permissible nor it can be permitted. Deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement notice arises only where the petitioner employee has completed 20 years of qualifying services on the date of notice but this period of absence of the petitioner is there for which appropriate order has to be passed and so longer this order has not been passed, this notice is of no avail or effect otherwise it will result in granting of retiral benefits to a person who otherwise was not eligible for voluntary retirement. ( 18 ) THIS writ petition is wholly based on technical points. The relief cannot be granted to the petitioner only on technical grounds where if this court is satisfied that on substance he has no case. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference of this court in the matter. In case the relief of the nature as prayed for is granted to the petitioner then what this court will do, is to put a seal of approval on his grave misconduct and his conduct to be an employee who has no like or respect for the rules and regulations and service conditions. ( 19 ) IN the result, this special civil application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this Court stands vacated. As nobody has put appearance for the respondents, no order as to costs. .