PERBHAT-J 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25-11-2000 recorded by learned Single Judge in SWP No. 250/2000. 2. On consideration the appeal stands admitted. Notice issued to the learned counsel for the respondents, they take notices. 3. We have heard Mr. R.A. Jan earned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. M.I. Qadri SAAG for the official respondents and Mr. A. Haqani learned counsel for respondent No. 4. The incontrovertable facts leading up to the present writ appeal are : that the appellant was appointed as Medical Assistant on 08-11-1998 and was posted at Jawahir Lal Nehru Memorial Hospital Srinagar. The post of Medical Assistant later on came to be re-designated as Pharmacist; that the appellant proceeded on 90 days leave w.e.f. 08-06-1993. Later on, on expiry of this leave, 45 days earned leave was again sanctioned in his favour commencing from 30-08-1993. Thereafter 120 days half pay leave was granted in his favour w.e.f. 13-10-1993; that the appellant after the expiry of said leave sanctioned in his favour did not resume his duties, he applied for further spell of 9 months leave w.e.f. 01-07-1995 which does not appear to have been sanctioned and he did not report to his duties; that respondent No. 3 issued notice on 05-12-1997 calling upon the appellant to report to his duties within a period of 15 days failing which proceedings for his termination from service as admissible under rules shall be initiated against him. This notice came to be published in the issue of Daily Aftab dated 11 -12-1997. Pursuant to this notice, the appellant did not report to his duties. However, this notice came to be replied by his father. On 14-05-1998, the appellant appeared before the office of the respondent No. 3 submitted his joining report but was not permitted to join instead respondent No. 1 came to issue a show cause notice dated 14-12-1999 calling him upon to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated under Article 128 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations for remaining un-authorisedly absent from duty. Aggrieved by the said notice dated 14-12-1999, the appellant approached this court through the medium of writ petition wherein, he came to seek indulgence of the court for the issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the said show cause notice being illegal, improper and ultra vires and nonest in the eye of law and also for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to resume his duties as per his joining report dated 14-05-1998, and to mark his attendance also and to pay him salary. The respondents 1 to 3 and also respondent No. 4 who came to be appointed in the leave arrangement of the appellant when he proceeded on leave filed their objections separately. In their objections the respondent 1 to 3 have assailed the maintainability of the said petition inter alia on the ground that the appellant has abandoned his services by remaining unauthorised absent for years together. The respondent No. 4 also came to assail the maintainability of the writ petition inter alia on the ground that he has not approached the court with clean hands because he has suppressed the facts of his going to Saudi Arabia where he took a foreign assignment, he visited Pakistan after a valid visa where he went training in holding of sophisticated weapons in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, this fact was admitted by him when he was apprehended by the police and that the Director General of Police J&K State by virtue of his communication in this regard has informed Director Health about the involvement of the appellant in subversive activities. The respondents have also stated that while serving in Saudi Arabia he contracted marriage with a Philippine girl namely Maria. The learned Single Judge on conclusion of the writ proceedings after hearing the parties came to dispose of the writ petition with directions to the official respondent to hold enquiry initiated by them and complete the same within four months and also with the direction that the relief prayed for release of salary and for permission to join against the post shall be dependent upon the result of the enquiry. This order of the learned Single Judge is impugned in this appeal. 4. Taking grievances to the said impugned order recorded by learned Single Judge the appellant has come up in appeal before us. This order of the learned Single Judge is impugned in this appeal. 4. Taking grievances to the said impugned order recorded by learned Single Judge the appellant has come up in appeal before us. In the memorandum of appeal the impugned order is assailed to have been recorded against law. 5. The stand of Mr. R.A. Jan learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant came to be appointed as Medical Assistant on 18-11 -1998, therefore in the matter of grant of leave and in connected matters of leave, the appellant is governed by Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1979 and not by chapter XI of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. This chapter of J&K Civil Service Regulations stand repealed and stands substituted by the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1979 which is applicable to the Government servant appointed to the Civil Service on or after 01 -09-1979 (Sic). Therefore the show cause notice issued by Respondent No. 1 by virtue of which the appellant is directed to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated under article 128 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations for remaining unauthorised absent is misconceived. This article 128 forms part of the said Civil Service Regulations which came to be repealed qua the Government servant appointed in Civil Service on or after 01-01-1979. This stand of learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable on the score that admittedly the appellant has un-authorisedly over stayed leave has not resumed his duties despite the advertisement notice issued in his name by the respondent No. 3 which was got published in the issue of Daily Aftab dated 05-12-1997. Therefore the competent authority that is to say the respondent No. 1 was within its powers to issue a notice to him to explain his conduct with respect to his unauthorised absence from his duties under sub rule 2 of Rule 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1979 which provides that:- "The wilful absence from duty after expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action." 6. True it is that notice dated 04-12-1999 which is impugned in the writ petition has been issued under article 128 of J&K Civil Service Regulations. True it is that notice dated 04-12-1999 which is impugned in the writ petition has been issued under article 128 of J&K Civil Service Regulations. This quoting of a rule with out quoting the Rule 25 sub rule 2 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1979 and read with Rule 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956 does not make any difference and is not fatal to the case of the respondents because wrong reference of the rule will not vitiate the said notice as action contemplated therein can be justified under some other rule to which the Government can take action. In this behalf reference is made to the case titled as P. Radhakrishna Naidu and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others reported as AIR 1977 SC 854 in which in para 18 of the judgment the Lordships of Apex Court have held that:- "The mere fact that three different rules were mentioned in the impugned orders without scoring out the rules which are not applicable to a petitioner in one case cannot be any grievance for the reason that in each case the relevant rule is identically worded. The omission on the part of the officers competent to retire the petitioners in not scoring out the rules which are inapplicable to a particular individual does not render the order bad. The reason is that one of the rules is applicable to him and the omission to strike out the rules which are not applicable will not in any manner affect the applicability of the rule mentioned. Further a wrong reference to power will not vitiate any action if it can be justified under some other powers under which the Government can lawfully do the act." 7. Besides in a case Dr.Mohammad Hussain Wani v/s State and others reported as KLJ 1997 page 76 this court has held that: "Held, a person who remains on unauthorised absence has to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 128 of Civil Service Rule and not Civil Service Leave Rules as the leave Rules does not deal with laying down a method which would be adopted in case of a person who absents himself." 8. The core question in this appeal is as to whether the statutory notice issued to Govt. The core question in this appeal is as to whether the statutory notice issued to Govt. employee by competent authority under statutory rules for explaining the conduct of unauthorised absence can be called in question before a court. In a case titled as State of Uttar Pradesh versus Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and an other reported as AIR SC 1987 943 wherein a similar question as to whether the show cause notice issued to a Govt. servant by the Government under statutory provisions calling upon to show cause why an action contemplated against him under statutory provisions was invalid and liable to be quashed came up for consideration of their Lordships wherein their lordships in para No. 9 of the judgment have observed that:- "When a show cause notice is issued to a Govt. servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the Govt. servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is shown to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is shown it is open to the Government to consider the submissions placed by the Govt. servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the court before that stage would be premature......" 9. The notice dated 14-12-1999 which is impugned in the writ petition is issued by the Respondent No. 1, it is nowhere the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 1 is not competent to issue show cause notice to him for explaining his conduct of unauthorised absence. This being so the above law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above said authority is applicable squarely to the facts of this case. Therefore, from the afore discussed facts and law the impugned order recorded by the learned Single Judge is absolutely legal and deserves to be affirmed. Therefore, the appeal being without any force is disallowed and the impugned order recorded by the Learned Single Judge is affirmed However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.