1. The petitioner, a Dental Surgeon, working in the Health Services, Kashmir, proceeded on three months earned leave, duly sanctioned by the competent authority on the ground of his mother's ailment. It is the case of the petitioner that he had to take her mother to Delhi for specialized treatment and, therefore, sought extension in his leave initially for three months and then for another period of three months. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had threats from militants, being the member of a family having political background, owing allegiance to Congress-I. In support of this submission, petitioner has appended a copy of letter dated 08.07.1999, addressed by Director General Police, CID J&K, Srinagar, to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Education Department, J&K, Srinagar, on the representation of petitioner's wife, which evidences that the petitioner's family, being staunch workers of Congress-I, had threatening from unknown militants. The petitioner states that on account of the above, he could not resume his duty and, therefore, sought extension in his leave from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Leave Rules applicable to him. It is averred in the petition that at no point of time the petitioner was informed that his requests for extension of leave had been rejected. On the contrary, the respondents issued a proclamation in one of the daily newspapers of Srinagar on 23.12.2002 and, a composite order, being Government order No. 1017-HME of 2002 dated 23.12.2002, appended as Annexure P3 to this petition, was issued whereby a large number of doctors, including the petitioner, were terminated and published in a newspaper. Petitioner's name in the said composite order figures at serial No. 127 of the doctors so terminated by the Government. 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of termination in this writ petition to the extent it relates to him, inter alia, on the ground of it being unconstitutional, dehors the Rules and violative of principles of natural justice, as no enquiry was held, and no show cause notice was issued to him. 3. The respondents have filed their reply. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner's services were terminated without enquiry and without issuing him a show cause notice. 3. The respondents have filed their reply. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner's services were terminated without enquiry and without issuing him a show cause notice. Instead, it is stated that he has lost the employment even under the Service Rules which provide that an employee loses his employment if he remains out of employment for five years, even if he may have proceeded on leave, and that the petitioner has abandoned the service. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner has avoided to associate with the enquiry that was ordered. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the matter. 5. Mr. A.M. Magray, learned Senior A AG, representing the respondents, on perusal of the original records, fairly conceded that no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner. This statement shortens the controversy. There are judgments, galore, that punishment of termination of services of a government employee can be imposed only after following the procedure established by law and after issuing the second show cause notice to the delinquent official. It is also established law that absence of an employee after expiry of leave will not by itself amount to abandoning the employment. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in Jai Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 492 ; and Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1972 (2) SCC 330; the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Mushtaq Ahmad Khan v. State of J and K & ors., 2004 (II) SLJ 445 : 2004 (3) JKJ HC-10 (DB), as also the judgements delivered by different coordinate Benches of this Court in Dr. Tasneem Gowhar v. State & ors., 2005 (II) SLJ 633:2005 (Supp.) JKJ HC-183; Subhash Chander v. State of J&K & ors., 2007 (1) JKJ HC-443 : 2007 (1) SLJ 209; Dr. Abdul Rashid Sheerwani v. State & ors., 2010 (I) SLJ 361:2010 (2) JKJ HC-553; and Dr. Suresh Bhagat v. State & ors., 2010 (I) SLJ 408 : 2009 (Supp.) JKJ HC-260. 6. The respondents in the instant case, admittedly, have not taken recourse to law governing the field. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, being wholly unconstitutional and dehors the relevant Rules, cannot, in law, be sustained. Suresh Bhagat v. State & ors., 2010 (I) SLJ 408 : 2009 (Supp.) JKJ HC-260. 6. The respondents in the instant case, admittedly, have not taken recourse to law governing the field. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, being wholly unconstitutional and dehors the relevant Rules, cannot, in law, be sustained. The impugned Government order No. 1017-HME of 2002 dated 23.12.2002, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, therefore, is quashed. 7. During the course of hearing, it was stated at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of this petition. Since, the relationship of the employer and the employee has come to an end, this Court cannot direct holding of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, now. The question that arises is as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. This Court in a case of similar nature, Mohd. Shafi Khan v. State of J&K & ors., 2009 (2) JKJ HC 97, has held the petitioner therein not entitled to any salary for the period he had not worked till the date of his retirement, but the said period was held to qualify for retiral/pensionary benefits and not to be treated as break in service. Applying the same principle to the present case, this petition is disposed of with the following direction: 8. That the petitioner's period of absence till the date of his retirement minus the period of earned leave due to him on the date he first, proceeded on three months earned leave, shall not earn any salary to the petitioner, but the total period of absence shall be counted towards the qualifying service of the petitioner for calculation of his retiral/pensionary benefits and shall not be treated as break in service. The above said exercise shall be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them. For facilitating the compliance of the judgement, the Registry is directed to provide a copy of this order to Mr. A. M. Magray, Sr. AAG, for compliance. The record produced which is annexed with the writ record shall also be returned to Mr. Magray, learned Senior Additional Advocate General. Disposed of with connected CMPs. No order as to costs.