JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants Sri Alok Sinha and Smt. Bulbul Godiyal for the respondent. 2. The delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. 3. This special appeal challenges the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.4.06, by means of which, the order of termination of service of the respondent dated 7.10.1984 has been set aside and he has been directed to be given all consequential benefits in accordance with law, with liberty to the appellants to hold a departmental enquiry afresh. 4. The facts are not disputed between the parties, namely, the respondent, who was initially employed as unpaid Apprentice Overseer vide order dated 5.3.1962, was thereafter, engaged on temporary post of Junior Engineer. He was confirmed w.e.f. 1.4.1972 on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), Irrigation Department, U.P., Lucknow. The Office Memorandum dated 7.2.1974 confirms the status of the respondent as confirmed employee, namely, confirmed Junior Engineer. 5. The respondent absented himself right from 13.2.1987 till 11.1.1996 i.e. for a period of nine years. 6. Respondent’s case is that the he fell seriously ill sometimes in February, 1987 and he was getting treatment at Mumbai, on account of which, he could not attend his duties and that he also sent applications and necessary medical certificates, whereas the appellants’ case is absolute denial of the aforesaid fact. 7. The medical certificates which are said to have been sent by the respondent, were only upto 11.10.1989. 8. The learned Single Judge after considering Fundamental Rule 18 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India alongwith relevant case laws, has found that unauthorized absence is a misconduct and, therefore, the services of the respondent could not have been terminated without holding any enquiry. 9. The plea of the counsel for the State that it was a case of abandonment of employment firstly does not flow from the order of termination of service, which specifically terminates the services of the respondent and secondly, in a case of abandonment also, opportunity has to be afforded before terminating the services. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not been able to show that in a case of permanent government servant, if he remains absent unauthorizedly, it can be taken to be abandonment on his behalf and it does not require any order of termination of service to be passed. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not been able to show that in a case of permanent government servant, if he remains absent unauthorizedly, it can be taken to be abandonment on his behalf and it does not require any order of termination of service to be passed. 11. Under the rules, a confirmed government servant can only be dispensed with his services by holding an enquiry on the charge, which is so grave, on which a major punishment of dismissal or removal from service may be awarded or is awarded. A government servant can also resign on his own will or he can be compulsorily retired, but there is no provision under which, his services can be terminated without holding any enquiry, but for the aforesaid two exceptions where the government servant resigns himself or is compulsorily retired. 12. We, therefore, do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in so far it sets aside the order of termination of service. 13. In regard to the liberty given to hold the enquiry afresh, it appears that the attention was not drawn of the learned Single Judge to the fact that the charge of unauthorized absence would be for the period from 1987 to 1994, whereas the respondent has reached the age of superannuation sometimes in the year 1996 and, therefore, on the date of judgment i.e. 18.4.2006, no sanction/permission even under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, could have been asked for nor could be granted, as the period would be beyond the period of four years from the date of institution of the enquiry. Therefore, the liberty given aforesaid is of no use. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that the respondent having remained absent throughout for such a long period without making any sincere effort of informing the department about his compulsion, may be of his illness, is not entitled for salary for the period aforesaid. His submission is that if the salary is paid, that would be an encouragement to all such employees, who absent themselves from duty unauthorizedly for such a long period. He further says that the respondent has not stated anywhere that he was not in gainful employment during all these period. 15. His submission is that if the salary is paid, that would be an encouragement to all such employees, who absent themselves from duty unauthorizedly for such a long period. He further says that the respondent has not stated anywhere that he was not in gainful employment during all these period. 15. In view of the fact that the respondent had not worked for the period during which he remained absent and thereafter because of the termination order passed by the government, we are of the view that there is no justification for any payment being made towards salary during the period of his absence. However, the aforesaid period is directed to be treated as continuity in service without any break for the purpose of other service benefits including post retiral dues. 16. We, therefore, modify the order to the extent that the respondent would not be entitled for any payment towards salary/back wages for the period during which he remained absent, but the said period shall be taken as in service and shall be counted for all other service benefits including pension. 17. The special appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. —————