JUDGMENT : M. Ramachandran, J.—While employed as a Manager in the State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as Bank) the petitioner, on June 21, 1990 had requested his employer to grant him leave for pursuing studies abroad. The application had been, forwarded to the competent authority duly recommended, but the request had been declined as shown by letter of the Zonal Manager dated August 1, 1990. The relevant circular provided that such requests were to be decided on individual basis, at the discretion of the Bank. Petitioner had requested that by way of an alternative leave on loss of pay may be sanctioned to him. The averments in the Original Petition show that on such appeal the Executive Committee had decided to reject the request. The petitioner had filed a representation to the Board of Directors Ext. P-7. It is gatherable that though leave had not been sanctioned, petitioner had proceeded to Canada, and had started receiving lessons, perhaps with the hope that he may be able to make the Bank see eye to eye with his request. 2. By a letter addressed to him at Canada, the Bank informed the petitioner as follows on April 17, 1991: "With reference to the appeal submitted by you regarding non-sanctioning of extraordinary leave on loss of pay, we advise that the appeal was considered and rejected by the appropriate authority." 3. The petitioner thereupon requested the Bank to furnish a few details. The Bank on its part issued him a memo on October 28, 1991, enclosing articles of charges framed along with statement of imputation. The allegation was that while functioning as Branch Manager of Quilon Branch, he committed serious lapses by unauthorisedly absenting from duty, went abroad to join M.B.A. programme and thereby violated Regulations 50(1) and 58(1) of the Staff Regulations. 4. Petitioner did not furnish prompt explanation. When the domestic enquiry had been posted to March 16, 1992, he had by Ext. P-14 informed the Officer that since he is seriously pursuing studies, and as he understood that the Bank will not reimburse the air fare from Halifax, the enquiry may be postponed to the next year. The further correspondence shows that the Bank had turned down his request to hold the enquiry at Canada. Petitioner submits that he had thereafter submitted his explanation on April 21, 1992, The enquiry was continued and concluded, without the petitioner participating. The further correspondence shows that the Bank had turned down his request to hold the enquiry at Canada. Petitioner submits that he had thereafter submitted his explanation on April 21, 1992, The enquiry was continued and concluded, without the petitioner participating. 5. On a perusal of records, it is seen that petitioner's request for privilege leave on the ground that he had to attend some personal work and look after medical treatment of his mother had been sanctioned and leave for 30 days had been granted from November 10, 1990. He had applied for extension, but this was not approved, and he had been directed to join duty. But, there was no compliance, and on February 18, 1991, he had informed from Canada that he had left India. It is also seen that further directions also were issued to him to join duty forthwith. 6. A report is seen filed by the Enquiry Officer on July 13, 1992 as Ext. P-18 finding that the charge against the petitioner stands proved. By proceedings dated January 23, 1993, the Managing Director had informed the petitioner that a decision has been taken to inflict on him the punishment of removal from service. This is Ext. P-19. Ext. P-20 is the appeal filed by the petitioner to the Executive Committee, against the decision. By Ext. P-21, the decision was confirmed. Exts. P-19 and 21 are under challenge. 7. Counsel for the petitioner formulated the following points: 1. The circumstances of the case would show that the officer has been subjected to arbitrariness and victimisation and this vitiates the entire transaction, the disciplinary proceedings culminating in the termination has to be declared as irregular and illegal. 2. The petitioner was not guilty of any lapses, and sufficient opportunity to establish his stand has not been given. 3. Bias was there as against the petitioner at every stage, and this tainted the proceedings completely. 4. Principles of natural justice were violated as the Managing Director and the Executive Committee who harboured ill-will against the petitioner were repeatedly authorised to decide against him. 5. The punishment is disproportionate. 8. Mr. Pathrose Mathai, appearing for the respondents refutes the allegations. He has pointed out that the very basis on which the case has been built up is unstable. 5. The punishment is disproportionate. 8. Mr. Pathrose Mathai, appearing for the respondents refutes the allegations. He has pointed out that the very basis on which the case has been built up is unstable. The petitioner was a Senior Officer, who was expected to guide other staff of the Bank, but himself had behaved in a manner totally forfeiting the trust placed on him. He had flouted the order of superiors and had behaved irrationally and irresponsibly and had therefore shown himself as person not amenable to discipline. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged the decision of the Bank rejecting his application for going abroad for higher studies. Therefore the above issue is concluded and interpretation of circulars was therefore irrelevant. As for the disciplinary proceedings, adequate opportunity had been offered, and it was not the concern of the Bank as to whether the petitioner chose to Utilise the opportunity. The submission, in short was that a bona fide decision, relying on the material that had come in the enquiry had been arrived at against an erring officer, and the petitioner's plea was empty in content. He had only been making an experiment, thereby abusing the process of Courts. 9. It has to be noticed that the petitioner has not challenged the earlier proceedings whereunder his request for permission to go abroad stood rejected. His first request was for a permission for availing the benefits arising from Ext. P-2 and P-3 Circulars. When they were rejected, he did not pursue on the lines, but put up a submission that he may be permitted to avail of leave on loss of pay. This request also was turned down, and he had appealed to higher authorities, but he had been advised by Ext. P-11 that the matter stands closed. He has not chosen to challenge the above, or any of the earlier orders. Therefore, an examination as to whether the request was rejected arbitrarily or not is unnecessary. 10. Dealing with the submission of the petitioner, it could be enquired as to whether there is ground to spell out arbitrariness. Leave, or for that matter extraordinary leave is not a right to be availed as a matter of course. Normally permission of the employer has to be awaited. The petitioner should not have lost his composure when the Bank had refused him leave. Leave, or for that matter extraordinary leave is not a right to be availed as a matter of course. Normally permission of the employer has to be awaited. The petitioner should not have lost his composure when the Bank had refused him leave. The subsequent conduct of the petitioner shows that he was on an impression that he was put at the receiving end without justification. 11. Mr. Dandapani, advocate refers to averments in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the Bank, and submits that it is evident that on September 22, 1990, the Executive Committee decided to decline the application for leave. When an appeal was filed, the Executive Committee had been again required to look into the matter by the Director Board, and this procedure is stated to be irregular. But, the explanation is forthright. For, no appeal to the Board of Directors lay, and the course as stated had been adopted. This cannot definitely lay foundation for a charge of bias. The averments are scanty to hold that the Officer was subjected to arbitrariness or victimisation or there was a biased approach. The right to grant leave simultaneously took in the right to reject an application of leave, as well. 12. Now, we may come to the other limbs of the arguments, that the petitioner was not guilty of the lapses, and he could not project the full facts in the enquiry. The sphere of examination is limited. The petitioner may have justification to reach Canada within the deadline prescribed, but so long as he was an employee he had no right to walk away ignoring whether or not the request sought for had been granted. Though in definite terms it had been indicated that permission to go abroad cannot be granted, with pay or on loss of pay, the petitioner had himself pre-decided the course of action he would follow. There is no denial that he had not to his credit sanctioned leave from December 9, 1990 onwards. It is also not disputed that he had gone abroad, and was not prepared to join duty when it was insisted. His reason for going away and remaining there are his personal matters. As the Bank submits, it suited him alone. Mr. There is no denial that he had not to his credit sanctioned leave from December 9, 1990 onwards. It is also not disputed that he had gone abroad, and was not prepared to join duty when it was insisted. His reason for going away and remaining there are his personal matters. As the Bank submits, it suited him alone. Mr. Dandapani taking me through the syllabus of the course for M.B.A. exhorts that a man who gained knowledge on the course materials would have been an asset to the Institution. But opinions differ. The Bank did not foresee any benefit for its business by granting him leave. There were not much facts in dispute, all were admitted and on records. In fact, the contention that the enquiry ought to have been held after one year, or that it should have been held at Toronto are submissions which normally cannot be countenanced. The Bank cannot be blamed for ignoring such suggestion. It is not a case where sufficient opportunity had not been granted, to answer the charges. The materials on record have been examined by the competent authority. The appellate authority also had gone into the matter in extenso. The observation in Ext. P-19 that the petitioner was in charge of the Disciplinary Proceedings Department, that he had put in 24 years of service, and that he belonged to Senior Management Grade, have not been disputed. I am of the opinion that so long as he had no unqualified right to avail of special leave, his conduct cannot be approved. I see no error on the part of the Bank in the conduct of the enquiry and imposition of penalty. 13. The counsel had thereafter made a submission that a fresh opportunity may be given to the petitioner, and he may be permitted to place full materials before the appellate authority, for a reconsideration of the issue. But, as the proceedings have been concluded as early as in 1993, it may not be proper to inject life to the closed chapters. The request does not appear to be reasonable. 14. The Original Petition is therefore dismissed. The parties are to suffer their costs.