ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner who was in the services of M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. was proceeded departmentally and punished, vide Order No. 6118-37 dated 24th/27th March. 1995, issued by the Chief General Manager (P & A C). CCL. Darbhanga House. Ranchi. By the said order, his services were terminated w.e.f. 7th April. 1991. The appeal preferred against the order was also rejected by the appellate authority, vide impugned order No. 21176-77 dated 11th December. 2000. 2. Both the aforesaid orders have been challenged by the petitioner in the present case. As the case can be disposed of on short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. 3. It appears that the petitioner was absent from duty w.e.f. 7th April, 1991 to 3rd July. 1992 and when he was advised to appear before the medical board, absconded from the duty and appeared before the Medical Board on 23rd July. 1993 after a lapse of 1-1/2 years. The aforesaid lapse on the part of the petitioner was construed serious misconduct under Clause 5.7 and 5.8 of the CDA Rules. 1978, which reads as follows: "7. Absence without leave or overstaying the sanctioned leave for more than four consecutive days without sufficient grounds, or proper or satisfactory explanation. 8. Habitual late attendance or habitual absence without taking prior permission for leave." 4. A departmental proceeding was initiated, wide Memorandum No. 24675-77 dated 10th September. 1993. The absent from duty w.e.f. 7.4.1991. as referred above, was made one of the charge, apart from similar absence from duty as was earlier made between 16th November. 1985 to 10th August. 1986: 27th February. 1987 to 2nd March, 1987: 3rd March. 1987 to 23rd January. 1989. When he proceeded on leave for only four days. 5. Reference of earlier medical examination held on 27th January. 1989 was also made in the charge sheet as the petitioner pleaded weakness to proceed on such leave, though he actually remained absent upto 16th November. 1990. 6. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report vide Annexure-A dated 2nd August. 1994 holding the charges levelled against the petitioner, vide Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Office Memorandum dated 10th September. 1994 established. Thereafter, the order of punishment was passed after serving a copy of the same, as referred above. 7. 1990. 6. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report vide Annexure-A dated 2nd August. 1994 holding the charges levelled against the petitioner, vide Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Office Memorandum dated 10th September. 1994 established. Thereafter, the order of punishment was passed after serving a copy of the same, as referred above. 7. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the Respondents have no jurisdiction to terminate the service of the petitioner from retrospective dated w.e.f. 7th April, 1991, as made vide order dated 24th/27th March. 1995 and the order is bad as no charge was made out, though it was established that the petitioner remained unauthorised absent from duty. 8. It was submitted that the petitioner being ill had to remain on leave. Many of the time, he was admitted in CCL/or Regional Hospital. Dhori for such sickness and all such evidences were led before the Enquiry Officer to suggest serious ailment of petitioner. The documents relating to treatment at Ranchi Gandhi Nagar Hospital and other evidences were also produced to suggest that the petitioner was forced to remain on leave for such illness/sickness. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any sort of leave without prior permission can be construed as unauthorised absent from duty but all unauthorised absent from duty cannot be construed to be misconduct, if a person for one or other good reason is forced to remain absent. 10. It was pleaded that in the case of serious ailment, it is not possible all the time for the employees to ask for previous sanction of leave, but only on the joining, the relevant evidence in support thereof is produced in to suggest that the employee was forced to proceed on leave because of such reason. 11. Such unauthorised absent from duty does not amount to misconduct, and only on in absence of such explanation, it can be construed to be a misconduct for an CDA. Rules 5.7 and 5.8 to be construed accordingly. 12. The counsel for the Respondents submitted that out of 72 months, the petitioner was on unauthorised leave far about 63 months, the evidences which were placed by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer relating to illness etc. were taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer and he having disbelieved, held the charges proved. 13. 12. The counsel for the Respondents submitted that out of 72 months, the petitioner was on unauthorised leave far about 63 months, the evidences which were placed by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer relating to illness etc. were taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer and he having disbelieved, held the charges proved. 13. As it is not possible for the Court to determine as to whether the period during which the petitioner remained unauthorised absent from duty amounts to misconduct or does not amount to misconduct, this Court is not inclined to give any decision in this respect. The Enquiry Officers finding being final, this Court cannot sit in appeal. 14. However, as the authorities have no jurisdiction to terminate the service of any employee from retrospective date, the impugned order dated 24th/27th March, 1995 to that extent, terminating the services of petitioner w.e.f. 7th April. 1991 is set aside. 15. The petitioner should be treated to have been terminated from service w.e.f. 24th/27th March. 1995 and he may claim for the terminal benefits, if any, to which he is entitled under the law. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.