Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-The petitioner assailed order dated 25/06/1989 (Annexure 8), so also dated 27/11/1991 (Annexure 11) of appellate authority, whereby past services rendered by him have been forfeited in view of Rule 86(1) of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951("RSR"). 2. The petitioner joined service on 011.1979 as Forest Guard, and after submitting application (Annexure 1) to Regional Forest Officer, Chhipa Barod dated 212.1985, he left head quarters and thereafter reported for duty on 10.06.1986. In the mean time, notice dated 15.01.1986 was issued under Rule 86, RSR for reporting on duty within seven days, thereafter the notice was published in Daily News Paper of 08/02/1986 and so also of 12/02/1986 and thereafter served with memo of charge sheet (Annexure 2) dated 30.07.1986 for his wilful absence from duty for 169 days from 212.1985 to 10.06.1986, and after affording him an opportunity of hearing in the course of inquiry, he was held guilty of wilful absence from duty for 169 days, ibid consequently, disciplinary authority, in exercise of powers under Rule 86(3) of RSR, forfeited past services of the petitioner, vide order dated 25.06.1989 (Annexure 8), against which he preferred appeal-that too was rejected by appellate authority vide order dated 211.1991 (Annexure 11). Hence, this writ petition. 3. Shri Amit Jindal, Counsel for petitioner urged that it was not a case of wilful absence from duty and petitioner proceeded on leave after submitting leave application (Annexure 1) dated 212.1985 and immediately after he was given sickness cum fitness certificate by the doctor concerned, he reported for duty. In such circumstances, the very charge sheet served upon him in holding it to be a case of wilful absence, is uncalled for and such absence on his part cannot be said to be wilful or any misconduct under Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. In this regard, Shri Jindal relied upon decisions of this Court in Chitarmal vs. State, 1997(1) WLC 734, 2004 WLC (UC) 248 and Babulals vs. State, 1995 (3) WLC 237. 4. Shri Jindal further contended that by applications dated 20.06.1987 & 30.07.1988 (Annexure 12 & 13, certain documents were demanded by the petitioner, which were not made available to him, thereby it has resulted in causing great prejudice to defend his case in course of inquiry. 4. Shri Jindal further contended that by applications dated 20.06.1987 & 30.07.1988 (Annexure 12 & 13, certain documents were demanded by the petitioner, which were not made available to him, thereby it has resulted in causing great prejudice to defend his case in course of inquiry. In support of his contentions, Shri Jindal placed reliance upon decisions of this Court in Babulal vs. State, 2000 (3) WLC 529 and Devendra Kr. Sharma vs. Union of India, 2005(3) RDD 226. 5. Shri Jindal also urged that the punishment inflicted upon petitioner for forfeiture of his past services is not provided under Rule 14 of CCA Rules, as such the very punishment inflicted upon him after inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules is beyond competence of the authority. 6. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition. Shri S.C. Mital, Counsel for respondents contended that application dated 212.1985 was received in their office on 212.1985 after the petitioner has left the head quarter without obtaining prior permission and getting his leave sanctioned from the competent authority as such, it was a case of wilful absence from duty, as mere submission of application for leaving head quarter will not hold him to proceed on leave unless prior permission is sought and granted, and that apart, leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Shri Mital urged that leave sought for by petitioner has not been sanctioned by competent authority and he proceeded only by submitting in the office. Shri Mital further contended that under Rule 86(3) of RSR, if absence period is of more than one month, inquiry can be initiated against delinquent under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, and appropriate orders has to be passed by competent authority and since in present case, wilful absence of petitioner for 169 days, the authority considered it proper to hold inquiry against him and after affording, him an opportunity of hearing as provided under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, he was held to be guilty for wilful absence and accordingly in exercise of powers under Rule 86, RSR, the authority has forfeited past services rendered by him vide order dated 25.06.1989 (Annexure 8) and appellate authority also after taking into consideration submissions made by the petitioner rightly rejected the appeal preferred vide order dated 211.1991 (Annexure 11). 7. 7. Shri Mital also contended that in view of Rule 86(3) of RSR, the authority was justified in holding inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules and full opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner but he failed to participate in the inquiry despite intimation of the date fixed in course of inquiry, was duly sent to him at all stages and no error was committed by taking decision by authority in initiating disciplinary action against petitioner. 8. Shri Mital further contended that petitioner never demanded any specific document in Course of inquiry and as regards applications (Annexures 12 & 13), they do not show relevancy of documents which at all were required by him so as to defend his case, inasmuch as once he has filed to participate in inquiry despite opportunity afforded, no prejudice in any manner can be said to have caused to him, particularly in present case, he was served with copy of inquiry report and he was called upon by disciplinary authority to submit his explanation before taking decision as to forfeiture of his past services. 9. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and perused material on record. 10. From the material on record, it is not in dispute that petitioner remained absent for 169 days, ibid, and merely after submission of leave application (Annexure 1) on 212.1985, without prior permission and sanction of leave by competent authority, he proceeded on leave and reported back for duty on 10.06.1986. No material has been placed on record by petitioner in course of inquiry for his absence in question and even nothing has been placed for prima facie satisfaction of this Court in support of his case in defence; in such circumstances, once absence that too for 169 days, stands proved on the basis of documents on record of inquiry, it is a clear case of wilful absence and in my opinion, no error has been committed by the authority in holding him guilty of wilful absence for 169 days. 11. 11. As regards next submission made by Shri Jindal that there is no such punishment of forfeiture of past service under Rule 14 of CCA Rules, in my opinion, inquiry was initiated against petitioner for absence from duty under Rule 86(3) of RSR, which itself , envisages that if an incumbent is on leave for more than 30 days without intimation or prior permission to leave head quarter or proceed on leave, inquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules has to be conducted against him. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the authority in taking decision as to infliction of punishment of forfeiture of past service under Rule 86(1) of RSR. 12. Judgment s on which Shri Jindal placed reliance, are not applicable at all in present facts and circumstances of the case, as they have no bearing on the issue which has come up for consideration before this Court in the case at hand. 13. So far as next submission made by Shri Jindal that documents were not supplied to petitioner, is concerned, suffice it to say that there was no document referred to by petitioner which he has demanded from inquiry officer, and apart from it, he has failed to appear in inquiry proceedings despite intimation sent to him, which too has not been disputed by him, therefore, in my opinion, no prejudice in any manner can be said to have caused to him in the circumstances of the case. 14. Consequently, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.