Per Massodi, J.;— 1. Appellant is aggrieved with the Writ Court judgment dated 18th July 2005, whereby his writ petition-SWP No.1783/2000, has been dismissed. The appellant through medium of writ petition questioned the Government order No. 258-PDD of 2000 dated 21.08.2000, terminating his service w.e.f. 01.01.1989. 2. Before going to the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal, it would be appropriate to have an overview of the facts of the case. 3. The appellant, while working as Assistant Engineer in PDD of the State Government approached the respondents with an application for grant of permission to take up a foreign assignment. The respondents vide Government order No. 102-PDD of 1986 dated 29.09.1986 accorded permission sought, for the period of one year. This was followed by Government order No. 85-PDD of 1989 dated 04.04.1989, extending it by one more year. The appellant was to resume his duty in January 1989. He instead of reporting to his department sought extension in leave and did not resume his duty in January, 1989 or during next eleven years. The respondents vide Government Order No. 258-PDD of 2000 dated 21.08.2000 terminated his service w.e.f. 1st January, 1989. 4. The appellant as stated, questioned the aforesaid Government order in writ petition - SWP No. 1783/2000. The case set up by appellant was that Article 113, Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 could not be pressed into service by respondents to terminate his service inasmuch as the appellant was a permanent employee of the State Government. It was pleaded that respondents before terminating appellant's service, were required to conduct an enquiry in terms of Rule 128, Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. 5. The respondents in reply to writ petition pleaded that a show cause notice bearing No. PDD-V/69-2000 dated 13.06.2000, was served on appellant, requiring him to show cause against the termination of his service under Article 113, Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations; that appellant submitted his Reply which on consideration was found unsatisfactory. The respondents insisted that as appellant had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for 12 long years, there was no option left with the respondents but to terminate appellant's service w.e.f. 01.01.1989 i.e. the date from which appellant went on unauthorized absence. 6. The respondents insisted that as appellant had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for 12 long years, there was no option left with the respondents but to terminate appellant's service w.e.f. 01.01.1989 i.e. the date from which appellant went on unauthorized absence. 6. The writ Court on consideration held the respondents to have rightly invoked Article 113, Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, and passed impugned termination order after according consideration to the case set up by appellant in reply to the show cause notice dated 13.06.2000. 7. The writ Court, relying on law laid down in Mushtaq Ahmad Khan v. State and Ors. 2004 (3) JKJ [HC] 10: SLJ 2004 445 held that the enquiry would be required only when an employee takes in defence any of the grounds, available under rules, to justify his absence and that as in the case before the Court, the facts were admitted, the respondents were not required to go for a formal enquiry. The Court held that even if appellant's case fell under Article 128, J&K Civil Service Regulations, still appellant was taken to have lost his appointment as he had overstayed the leave for a pretty long time. The absence of appellant from duty according to the Court was so long that such absence amounted to abandonment of service on part of appellant. 8. The appellant questions the Writ Court judgment on the grounds that the Writ Court, while dealing with the writ petition, failed to notice that appellant had reported to duty on 20th June, 1995 and therefore, his absence from duty was not intentional or deliberate. It is pleaded that once appellant joined his duty on 20th June, 1995, respondents were required to conduct an enquiry into the unauthorized absence of appellant from 01.01.1989 to 20th June, 1995. The Articles 113 and 128, Civil Service Regulations, it is pleaded, operate in different fields and even in a case falling under Article 113, Civil Service Regulations, the official is to be given an opportunity to put forth his defence and the action, if any, warranted was to be taken only after the defence set up was accorded consideration by respondents. It is pointed out that the Division Bench judgment reported as 2004 (3) JKJ [HC] 10: 2004 SLJ 445 (supra) does lay down that in a case falling under Article 113 Civil Service Regulations, enquiry was not required, as the Writ Court appeared to have concluded. 9. We have gone through the appeal as also writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The facts relevant to the controversy, as rightly pointed out by the writ Court, are admitted and not in dispute. It is admitted case of the parties that the appellant proceeded on leave w.e.f. 01.12.1986 and submitted his joining report on 20th June, 1995 i.e. more than nine and a half years after he was required to resume his duty. It is also not in dispute that the joining report was not entertained by respondents and the Administrative Department vide No. PDD-V/69-2000 dated 13th June, 2000, asked appellant to show cause against action warranted under Article 113 Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956. 11. The appellant replied the show cause notice through his counsel on 26th June, 2000. The respondents, on consideration of the matter including the explanation tendered by appellant, terminated his services in terms of Article 113, J&K Civil Service Regulations, w.e.f 01.01.1989. The only controversy that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case relates to applicability of either of the Articles i.e. 113 and 128 to the matter in question. It would be appropriate to extract Article 113 and 128 Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 for ready reference. "113. After five years continuous absence on leave, an officer is considered to be out of State employ. 128. Absence without leave or after the end of leave involves loss of appointment, except as provided in Article 203 (b) or when due to ill-health in which case the absence must produce the certificate of Medical Officer." 12. A bare look at the above reproduced regulations would reveal that Article 113 is attracted only where a Government employee is on continuous absence on leave for a period of five years. In such eventuality a Government servant would be considered to be out of Government service. A bare look at the above reproduced regulations would reveal that Article 113 is attracted only where a Government employee is on continuous absence on leave for a period of five years. In such eventuality a Government servant would be considered to be out of Government service. Article 113 does not relate to unauthorized absence i.e. absence without leave or absence on leave for a period of less than five years or absence after availing leave of less than five years. 13. Article 128 on the other hand deals with unauthorized absence or absence without leave or absence after the end of the leave. It follows that if a Government employee unauthorized remains absent from duty or remains unauthorized absent from duty after his period of leave is over, Article 128 and not 113 would be attracted. 14. The absence without leave or after the end of leave would involve loss of appointment in terms of Article 128, unless the case falls within the ambit of Article 203 (b) or the Government servant was not in a position to attend the duty because of ill-health. In the later case, the Government servant is to produce the certificate of Medical Officer. Article 128 because of exceptions carved out therein, would require the enquiry into the matter for the reason that only after the matter is enquired into the Government servant would have an opportunity to plead that his case falls within purview of Article 203 (b) or that he was prevented from attending his duties due to ill-health. Article 113 on the other hand does not leave room for any exception and provides that after five years absence on leave, an officer is considered to be out of State employ. In the circumstances Article 113 does not envisage any formal enquiry. 15. In the present case, the officer proceeded on leave on 01.12.1986 and as per his own showing reported to duty on 20th June, 1995 i.e. after a period of nine and a half years. The appellant's case fell within the purview of Article 113 Civil Service Regulations, 1956. The respondents, still afforded the appellant an opportunity to show cause against action, they proposed to take against him under Article 113 Civil Service Regulations, 1956. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The appellant's case fell within the purview of Article 113 Civil Service Regulations, 1956. The respondents, still afforded the appellant an opportunity to show cause against action, they proposed to take against him under Article 113 Civil Service Regulations, 1956. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The respondents on consideration of the matter including the cause shown by the appellant, terminated his services vide order impugned before the writ Court w.e.f. the date he was expected to report to duty after availing the leave. The order impugned therefore, does not suffer from any illegality. 16. The writ Court on scanning the facts and the material placed on the file was right in observing that the appellant in reply to the show cause notice did not plead any of the grounds, available under rules, to justify his absence and therefore, there was no requirement of a formal enquiry into the matter. The conclusion drawn by the writ Court that the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case, had lost employment, is the only conclusion that could be drawn against the backdrop of the material available before the writ Court. 17. We, for the reasons discussed, do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.