Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 21.4.2006 Annexure P-5 declining leave sought by the petitioner and order dated 5.6.2006, Annexure P-9 declaring the post occupied by the petitioner to be vacant with effect from 18.4.2006 under Statute 74 of the Guru Nanak Dev University Calendar-1999, Volume I. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he joined service as Technician on ad hoc basis on 9.9.1992 and was later regularised and promoted as Senior Technician. He had abdominal complication for which he visited Canada with the permission of the University in November 2005 but proposed surgery was postponed and he returned to India. For visiting Canada again, the university gage `No Objection and the petitioner applied for leave, which was not granted, even though, there was provision for extra ordinary leave as per Statute 75.2 of the Statutes. 3. According to the University, the petitioner applied for leave to visit his relatives on 23.4.2003. He sought extension with effect from 5.2.2004 on the ground that he could not return from Canada on account of unavoidable circumstances. He, thereafter, sought extension w.e.f. 5.11.2004 on the ground of "domestic problem of the family". Another application dated 5.4.2005 was made for extension of leave on identical ground. On 27.10.2005, the petitioner applied for commuted medical leave. On 24.1.2006, after gap of leave for three years, the petitioner joined but after one month, sought leave for 48 days, which was due in his leave account, which was accepted. After expiry of earned leave and all other leave in his account, the petitioner applied for further leave from Canada on 27.3.2006 on account of "unavoidable circumstances". No leave being due, application was declined and he was required to join on or before 30.4.2006 failing which the post occupied by him was to be declared vacant in terms of Regulation 74 (supra), which is as under "If the officer remains absent without leave or overstays his leave, he shall forfeit all his salary for the time of his absence and if he remains absent without leave or overstays his leave for more than one week, his office shall be declared vacant and he shall be liable to pay an amount equivalent to his salary, in lieu of notice for the prescribed period. However, the competent authority may grant exemption from such recovery on the merit of the case." Since the petitioner did not join, he was again informed and given time till 22.5.2006. Thereafter, on 5.6.2006, the post occupied by the petitioner was declared vacant. 4 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since power of granting extra-ordinary leave existed, the petitioner was entitled to be granted extra-ordinary leave. The petitioner having earlier been granted leave on medical ground, declining of leave was arbitrary. 6. Learned counsel for the University pointed out that in view of facts mentioned in the written statement, the petitioner having taken leave on different and conflicting grounds from 5.5.2003 to 23.1.2006, the requirement of leave of the petitioner could not be treated as genuine and mere power to grant extra-ordinary leave did not mean that the University was bound to grant the same. It was also pointed out that order of declaration of vacancy of the post occupied by the petitioner having been stayed by this court on 22.8.2006, the petitioner did not report for duty for more than a year and has sought to join only on 27.9.2006. Writ petition itself was filed, when the petitioner was still in Canada through his attorney. 7. The question for consideration is whether in the circumstances of the case, the University was bound to grant extra ordinary leave and whether the impugned order declaring the post occupied by the petitioner to be vacant, was legally permissible. 8. In the present case, the petitioner remained on leave from 5.5.2003 to 23.1.2006 and from 1.3.2006 to 17.4.2006. All his leave was exhausted. Further leave sought by him vide application dated 13.4.2006 was not sanctioned and he was given time to join upto 30.4.2006. He was given another chance vide letter dated 15.5.2006 to join till 22.5.2006. At that stage, the petitioner sent medical certificate, which was not considered to be genuine. According to the stand of the University, the petitioner wanted to visit Canada with no intention to come back and his object was to get permanent residence there, while retaining the post in the University. At that stage, the petitioner sent medical certificate, which was not considered to be genuine. According to the stand of the University, the petitioner wanted to visit Canada with no intention to come back and his object was to get permanent residence there, while retaining the post in the University. Though, he took leave from 1.3.2006 to 17.4.2006 for abdominal operation, in his application dated 27.3.2006, further leave was sought "due to unavoidable circumstances" and leave sought was for six months from 18.4.2006 to 17.10.2006 without mentioning abdominal treatment. 9. In above circumstances, it is clear that the leave sought by the petitioner was not genuine. All available leave was duly sanctioned for more than three years and further leave was declined on not being satisfied that the same was genuine. There is no material on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that he genuinely needed leave for medical purposes. Further conduct of the petitioner in not joining even after expiry of six months from April 18, 2006 inspite of opportunity under the interim orders of this Court dated 22.8.2006 without any justification having been shown also clearly goes against the petitioner. In above circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. We may also refer to the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mohammed Ayub Naz, 2006(1) SCT 445 : AIR 2006 SC 856, noticing that absenteeism from office for prolonged period of time had become principal cause of indiscipline in government service and if a person remains absent wilfully for a long period, he was not entitled to be given any benefits. Relevant observations are :- "9. Absenteeism from office for prolong period of time without prior permission by the Government servants has become a principal cause of indiscipline which have greatly affected various Government Services...." xx xxx xxx xxx xxx 18. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that a Government servant who has wilfully been absent for a period of about 3 years and which fact is not disputed even by the learned single Judge of the High Court has no right to receive the monetary/retiral benefits during the period in question...." Again in State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, 2005(2) SCT 401 : 2005(12) SCC 182, it was observed that absence without leave amounts to gravest act of misconduct. It was observed :- "8. We do not agree with the High Court that a single act of remaining absent without leave would not amount to gravest act of misconduct. This would depend upon the fact situation of each case. In the present case we find that the respondent remained absent without leave for quite a long period..." We may also refer to judgment of Delhi High Court in Prem Juneja v. Union of India, 2003(1) SCT 690, wherein judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, 2000(4) SCT 313 : AIR 2000 SC 2783 was relied upon upholding the rule of automatic loss of lien for unauthorised absence, to the following effect :- "A reading of the aforesaid Article 81(d) leaves no manner of doubt that it does not suffer from any of the vices on the basis of which it has been attacked by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that aforesaid Article 81(d) of the Education Code is violative of the equality clause. There is nothing in Article 81(d) of the Education Code which makes it unjust, unfair and unreasonable. It is meant to deal with an unwarranted situation of absentism. Absenteeism is a bane of public service. The erring employees have been taking advantage of the procedure and mocking at the system, unauthorised absenteeism in offices is rampant. There are instances galore where the employees remained absent for several years and yet were able to successfully challenge the orders of their terminations. This had given undue advantage to the erring employees. They not only were able to get the orders of termination quashed or set aside, but they were also reinstated with full back wages. This situation cannot be allowed to prevail. The indiscipline must be curbed in order to infuse efficiency and discipline in the services. It was possibly in this view of the matter that Article 81(d) of the Education Code was framed." In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and others, 2003(2) SCT 287 : AIR 2003 SC 1724, Para 8, it was observed that mere application for grant of leave cannot be construed to be a proper intimation for absence. 11. It was possibly in this view of the matter that Article 81(d) of the Education Code was framed." In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and others, 2003(2) SCT 287 : AIR 2003 SC 1724, Para 8, it was observed that mere application for grant of leave cannot be construed to be a proper intimation for absence. 11. In the present case, the petitioner was on leave for about three years and thereafter inspite of leave having not been granted, the petitioner remained absent for about one and a half years i.e. for about four months before grant of stay by this Court and for more than a year thereafter. In the circumstances, we are of the view that this is not a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed.