Judgment :- 1. As per the amended prayer, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kanyakumari District as well as the order dated 01.09.2008 of the same authority. By the impugned orders, the sanction of medical leave as unearned leave was cancelled and he was also dismissed from service respectively. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 24.09.2008. In the application for interim stay, only notice was ordered. Subsequently, the petitioner filed applications in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 seeking to amend the prayer and to raise additional grounds. Those applications were ordered on 26.08.2010. 3. On notice from this Court, on behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit dated 01.04.2009 was filed. 4. It is seen from the records that when Updating Registry (UDR) Scheme was taken up by the Survey and Land Records Department, the Government sanctioned additional staff on time scale of pay in higher categories and also staff on consolidated pay on contract basis at the basic level categories for the speedy completion of the work. Recruitments were made on consolidated pay for the posts of Surveyor/Draftsman and candidates were recruited through Employment Exchange apart from appointment of Section Writers of Survey and Revenue Departments. The petitioner was appointed as Surveyor-Draftsman on consolidated pay. Since promotions were given to fill up higher categories, several vacancies arose in the basic level categories. As the work had to be carried out by keeping all the posts filled up, Government permitted filling up of the temporary vacancies by candidates who are appointed on consolidated pay. The Government also issued orders to avoid large scale retrenchment after completion of the scheme work by which consolidated pay employees were appointed in other Departments in time scale of pay posts. The petitioner was given time scale of appointment in the Commercial Tax Department. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.9829 of 1997 before the Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal granted an interim stay on 09.12.1997 and directed to keep one post of time scale of Surveyor vacant in the Survey Department. The petitioner also filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal to appoint him in the vacancy earmarked for him. The Tribunal by an order dated 25.09.1998 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal to appoint him in the vacancy earmarked for him. The Tribunal by an order dated 25.09.1998 directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as a Surveyor in Tiruvannamalai District by order dated 07.09.1998. The petitioner did not join in the said post and gave a representation on 06.11.1998 to post him in Kancheepuram District. After examining the petition, his request was rejected by an order dated 28.12.1998 and he was directed to join duty in Tiruvannamalai District immediately. Even after the said order, he did not join duty. Thereafter, the petitioner’s request was considered since there was a vacancy in Kancheepuram District and the orders were revised by an order dated 09.02.1999 and he was posted to Kancheepuram District. Based on the above order, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records gave a posting order to the petitioner on 23.02.1999 with the condition that his seniority in the cadre of Surveyor will be reckoned from the date of joining in Kancheepuram District. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4327 of 1999 before the Tribunal challenging the condition mentioned in the order. The Tribunal by an order dated 06.08.1999 granted an interim stay. The OA was transferred to this Court and is pending as writ petition. 7. While the petitioner was working as consolidated pay Surveyor/Draftsman, he had submitted medical leave for a continuous period of 809 days from 23.06.1997 to 09.09.1999. This leave was sanctioned by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kancheepuram. As the petitioner was working under consolidated pay, he was not bound by any Service Rules and he is eligible to take medical leave for a maximum period of six months. The Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records had sanctioned 809 days of medical leave for which he was not eligible. Hence, the first respondent by an order dated 22.03.2007 cancelled the leave sanctioned to the petitioner and directed the second respondent to take action against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Based upon the same, charge memo was framed against the petitioner for submitting leave without proper justification. He submitted his explanation on 12.07.2007. The Inspector of Survey, Kancheepuram District was appointed as Enquiry officer. Based upon the same, charge memo was framed against the petitioner for submitting leave without proper justification. He submitted his explanation on 12.07.2007. The Inspector of Survey, Kancheepuram District was appointed as Enquiry officer. After receipt of the enquiry report, he was dismissed by an order dated 01.09.2008. 8. The nature of leave sought for by the petitioner for various spells are set out in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit which is as follows:- 9. It was further stated that since the petitioner was in consolidated pay at the time of his recruitment, his services can be terminated by giving one month notice. He was not eligible for any leave including leave of 2 ½ years on medical grounds. His appointment was covered by Rule 10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and hence, removal can be made without assigning any reason. 10. In the additional grounds raised by the petitioner, it was contended that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and it was opposed to principles of natural justice. There was no justification for cancelling the sanctioned leave. If he is not eligible for any leave, then it should be treated as break. After leave period, he was also put on two year probation which he had satisfactorily completed. He has become a regular government servant from 09.09.1999 and during his regular service, he has not committed any misconduct. 11. It is not clear as to how these grounds will have any assistance to the petitioner. Misconduct was committed by the petitioner when he was holding the post of consolidated Surveyor and he has been given appropriate notice and enquiry was also conducted. The fact that erroneously leave was sanctioned earlier will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner unless the petitioner is justified in getting the leave sanctioned as a matter of right. Unauthorised absence that too at the entry of service for more than 2 ½ years cannot be condoned by this Court. 12. It must be noted that unauthorised absence is a serious misconduct and a punishment of dismissal can also be imposed. However, before imposing penalty, the procedure prescribed under the Rules has to be followed. In the present case, such a procedure has been followed. Hence, the petitioner has to blame himself for not joining duty at the present post. 13. It must be noted that unauthorised absence is a serious misconduct and a punishment of dismissal can also be imposed. However, before imposing penalty, the procedure prescribed under the Rules has to be followed. In the present case, such a procedure has been followed. Hence, the petitioner has to blame himself for not joining duty at the present post. 13. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in LIC of India Vs. R.Dhandapanireported in 2006 (13) SCC 613.The Supreme Court after dealing with a case of long absence, has held in paragraph 8 as follows: "8.In recent times, there is an increasing evidence of this, perhaps well-meant but wholly unsustainable, tendency towards a denudation of the legitimacy of judicial reasoning and process. The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability. (See Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. Vs. A.Unnikrishnan)." 14. The Supreme Court in L&T Komatsu Ltd. v. N.Udayakumar reported in (2008) 1 SCC 224 in paragraphs 6 to 8 held as follows:- "6. It is submitted that habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline. It is also submitted that the parameters for the exercise of (sic jurisdiction under) Section 11-A of the Act have not been kept in view by the Labour Court and the High Court. 7. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that because of personal problems there was unintentional absence and that should not have been seriously viewed. The reply to the second show-cause notice on which the emphasis is laid by the appellant to contend that the respondent had admitted his guilt was taken under coercion. It is also submitted that the discretion for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A has been rightly exercised. 8. The reply to the second show-cause notice on which the emphasis is laid by the appellant to contend that the respondent had admitted his guilt was taken under coercion. It is also submitted that the discretion for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A has been rightly exercised. 8. So far as the question whether habitual absenteeism means the gross violation of discipline, it is relevant to take note of what was stated by this Court in Burn & Co. Ltd. v. Workmen: (AIR p.530, para 5) “5. … There should have been an application for leave but Roy thought that he could claim, as a matter of right, leave of absence though that might be without permission and though there might not be any application for the same. This was gross violation of discipline. Accordingly, if the Company had placed him under suspension that was in order. On these findings, it seems to us that the Tribunal erred in holding that it could not endorse the Company’s decision to dispense with his services altogether. In our opinion, when the Tribunal upheld the order of suspension it erred in directing that Roy must be taken back in his previous post of employment on the pay last drawn by him before the order of suspension.” 15. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.