Judgment Amareshwar Sahay, J.-Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner who was Assistant Chief Engineer (Civil) working with Projects and Development India Ltd. (in short 'PDIL') has challenged the order dated 3.10.2002 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition whereby, the Chief Personnel Officer informed the petitioner that his services stood terminated from PDIL, since he voluntarily abandoned his employment in PDIL and thus lost his lien on the post he was holding and his name has been struck off the rolls of the company w.e.f. 3.10.2002 under Rule 10.0 of PDIL, Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1987 applicable to him. 3. The admitted facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner while posted at Manmad in the District of Nasik, Maharashtra under PDIL was transferred to Sekmai Project at Imphal, Manipur in October, 2000. He was relieved to join on the transferred post on 31st March, 2001. He joined Sekmai Project at Imphalon 8.4.2001 and thereafter, left that place on 8.5.2001. As per the impugned Order dated 3.10.2002 (Annexure-10), the petitioner, while posted at Sekmai Project site, had abandoned the Project site in the 1st week of May, 2001 without permission of Project Manager and due sanction of leave. Though one year five months time had lapsed since the petitioner unauthorizedly left site and he did not report for duty nor proper leave application with specific dates were sent by him with sufficient proof of his sickness in spite of repeated notices issued to him and, therefore, it was considered that the petitioner has voluntarily abandoned his duty from PDIL. 4. According to the petitioner, he left Sekmai Project considering the explosive law and order situation there for Manmad but on way to Manmad, he fell sick and it was diagnosed that he was suffering from severe Jaundice. Further, according to the petitioner, he replied all the letters and notices sent to him for resuming his duty at Sekmai Project. He duly informed that he was not in a position to join his duty because of his illness. 5. The fact remains that admittedly the petitioner remained absent from duty for one year and five months. The petitioner has not been able to show that any leave for the period was sanctioned by any competent authority and, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from the duty without any sanction of leave. 6. 5. The fact remains that admittedly the petitioner remained absent from duty for one year and five months. The petitioner has not been able to show that any leave for the period was sanctioned by any competent authority and, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from the duty without any sanction of leave. 6. The petitioner, in support of his case, has produced several medical report showing that he was suffering from Jaundice and he was advised to take rest and, therefore, did not join duty, but one of the medical certificate dated 16.6.2001 annexed by the petitioner with the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice from 13.5.2001 and he was declared fit to resume normal duty from 16.6.2001 by the treating Doctor. Admittedly even thereafter, the petitioner did not join his duty at Sekmai Project therefore the plea of the petitioner that he was ill and therefore he did not join his duty can't be accepted. The petitioner could have joined even after 16.6.2001 but as it appears that he did not join till the impugned letter was sent to him. 7. In paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner was not joining his duty not due to his illness but the main ground for fleeing away from Imphal leaving his other colleague to complete his assigned work, as appeared from the reply submitted by the petitioner that due to on going agitation by the Nagas versus Manipuris at Imphal and imposition of an indefinite curfew as a result, he did not go to join his duty at Sekmai Project, Imphal and all the times he submitted that as soon as the situation would normalize and conducive working atmosphere is created at Imphal, he would join the duty but he did not join and in this way, he absented from duties unauthorizedly for one year and five months. 8. The relevant extracts of Projects & Development India Ltd., Employees' (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1987 has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition from which it appears that Rule 10 speaks about the unauthorized absence from duty which reads as under:- 10. 8. The relevant extracts of Projects & Development India Ltd., Employees' (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1987 has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition from which it appears that Rule 10 speaks about the unauthorized absence from duty which reads as under:- 10. Unauthorised absence from duty.-If any employee remains absent without prior permission/sanction or without leave beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended shall lose his lien on the post and will be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned his employment and his name shall be struck off the rolls of the company unless:- (a) he returns 8 days of expiry of leave or commencement of the absence as the case may be and gives explanation to the satisfaction of the authority granting leave of his inability to be present; or (b) submits necessary medical certificate from the treating physician alongwith leave application if the absence is on account of sickness." 9. The petitioner has not been able to show that he was granted permission or any leave was sanctioned by any competent authority. Therefore, as per the Projects & Development India Ltd., Employees' (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1987 quoted hereinabove, there is no doubt that under the said provisions, it would be deemed that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned his employment and, therefore, his name was liable to be struck off from the rolls of the Company. Even if it is accepted as claimed by the petitioner that he sent application for grant of leave but mere sending application for grant of leave cannot be construed to be proper intimation of absence. Absence from duty without sanction of leave is a grave offence warranting serious consequences. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2003)3 SCC 309 . The impugned order Annexure-10 was issued in terms of Rule 10 of the abovenoted Employees' (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the Company. The petitioner can blame himself for creating such a situation for the respondents to issue the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without initiating. The petitioner can blame himself for creating such a situation for the respondents to issue the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without initiating. any departmental proceeding or without serving any charge-sheet or giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order as contained in Annexure-10 could not have been issued since it violated the principles of natural justice. 11. It is a settled law that if an employee is not joining his duty or remaining absent for a very long period without any sanction of leave, then it would amount to voluntarily abandoning his service and in that case, it would not be required to hold any departmental inquiry. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Engineer (Construction) vs. Keshava Rao (Dead) by LRs. reported in (2005)11 SCC 229 and Syndicate Bank vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and Another reported in 2001 LLJ 1630(SC) as also in the case of Mahabali vs. Central Administrative' Tribunal and Others reported in 2005(107) FLR 1211 (Allahabad). 12. Thus, in view of the discussions and findings above, I do not find it a fit case for any interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.