Judgment : N. Kumar, J. 1. This Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has interfered with the punishment of dismissal and substituted the punishment of Compulsory retirement. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred as they are referred to in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner had joined the Bank as a probationary officer and he was confirmed in service after a period of two years. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Manager after 15 years of service. Thereafter he was transferred to the Gurgaon Branch of the respondent-Bank to head the Forex Department. According to the petitioner he was unable to provide what was called DB Package Software and SWIFT facility for international financial transactions communication facility, which according to the petitioner was a basic requirement for a Forex Business to commence for more than one year. The Foreign Exchange Department in the Gurgaon Branch was called “Swift Alliance Access Software’. The Petitioner was alone required to handle the Forex business at the said branch since the Bank had failed to provide two other employees, who were required to operate the system and the risks involved were serious, which was brought to the notice of the Bank immediately by the petitioner. His apprehension was that even a minor error in the operation of the SWIFT could amount to huge losses running into crores of rupees. He made a representation to the Bank to post two Forex Officers to work in the Foreign Exchange Section. His request was not acceded to. When he did not get the required support, he applied for a leave of 335 days on loss of salary. He gave three reasons namely, (i) to prepare for alternative career; (ii) that there was no recognition for his good work; and (iii) the risky working environment; which prompted him to apply for leave. On consideration of the said application, it was rejected. He was directed to report to duty. But he did not report to duty. He remained absent from 02.05.2005 without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority. On consideration of the said application, it was rejected. He was directed to report to duty. But he did not report to duty. He remained absent from 02.05.2005 without prior sanction of leave from the competent authority. Therefore, he was served with a charge sheet alleging three grounds of misconduct (i) Unauthorised absence; (ii) Forwarding E-Mails mentioning his unsolicited views and comments, with a view to carry out the exaggerated and unwarranted propaganda about network link failures in the Bank; (iii) the communication was sent directly to the higher authorities without sending them through proper channel. The petitioner gave his reply and a Domestic Enquiry was conducted. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that charges 1 and 3 are proved and charge No.2 was partly proved. The disciplinary authority exonerated the petitioner in respect of second charge completely and accepted the finding of the enquiry officer on charges 1 and 3 and imposed the penalty of dismissal. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a writ petition without preferring statutory appeal. Thereafter, he filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed. 4. The learned single Judge on careful consideration of the case of the petitioner held that there is no provision for the petitioner to go on leave for the entire period at one point of time and that his representations were made directly to the higher authorities, which is contrary to the regulations. At the same time, the learned Single Judge appreciated the apprehension of the petitioner and the reason for not working in Gurgaon Branch and was of the view that even though the misconduct is proved, the punishment of dismissal was not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved. Therefore, he set-aside the order of removal and he was of the view that he be given a golden hand shake and provided with little relief that he may be entitled and therefore substituted the punishment of removal with compulsory retirement from 02.05.2005 and the Bank was required to work out the benefits that was available for him. To that extent, the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-appellant contended that the petitioner under the peculiar circumstances of the case was forced to go on leave. To that extent, the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-appellant contended that the petitioner under the peculiar circumstances of the case was forced to go on leave. He had been transferred to a Branch, which was dealing with foreign exchange. He was entitled to the assistance of two more employees, which denied to him. A small error while discharging his duties would have resulted in loss of crores of rupees to the Bank. His repeated requests and representations to give requisite assistance as set down in the representation was not forthcoming. On the contrary, the authorities did not take note of the said approach. Though the petitioner’s advises, recommendations and suggestions were accepted by the RBI, his bank was not prepared to take his advice. In these circumstances, he had no option except to apply for leave. Therefore, it cannot be construed as unauthorised absence. Even otherwise, the learned Single Judge has categorically stated that he has to be given a golden hand shake and sent home, which has not been obeyed by the Bank and therefore he submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Disciplinary authority requires to be set-aside. 6. Per Contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank supported the impugned order and submitted that in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, all monetary benefits, which he would be entitled to if he had been compulsorily retired has been extended and therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge does not warrant interference. 7. From the aforesaid material, it is clear that the petitioner was transferred to the Branch at Gurgaon. It was Bank dealing with foreign exchange. After reporting to duty there, he had sought for certain assistance and clarifications. He had also made certain suggestions regarding how the Bank should work. The authorities have not responded in the manner he wanted. Therefore, he applied for leave of 335 days. The reasons given for such leave are (i) he want to prepare for alternative career; (ii) His work has not been recognized; (iii) The risky working environment. None of them could be a justification for grant of leave. In other words, if he is not interested in work, he should quit. Therefore, he applied for leave of 335 days. The reasons given for such leave are (i) he want to prepare for alternative career; (ii) His work has not been recognized; (iii) The risky working environment. None of them could be a justification for grant of leave. In other words, if he is not interested in work, he should quit. Therefore, the question of applying for leave does not arise. In spite of the Bank repeatedly calling upon the petitioner to report for duty, he remained absent, that is called as unauthorized absence. The justification he was trying to give for his unauthorised absence would not constitute a sufficient cause at all in law. 8. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge the misconduct stands proved. But however, the learned Single Judge has taken a lenient view and took note of the fact that he has put in 26 years of service and therefore he was of the view that he should be sent out without any stigma. Therefore, he called it is golden hand-shake and therefore he should be given all mandatory benefits, which he would receive, had he has been compulsorily retired from service. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that golden hand-shake means something more than compulsory benefits, ‘Golden Hand-Shake’ is a word used to put and end to service contract by mutual agreement. It has to be understood in the circumstances of the particular case. What the learned Single Judge meant when he used the words ‘golden hand shake’ in the facts of this case is to substitute the punishment of removal with punishment of compulsory retirement, so that he will be entitled for all mandatory benefits, if he has been compulsorily retired. Apart from that there is no other meaning. No additional benefit was extended. 10. The bank has extended the benefit of Provident Fund and Gratuity and other benefits, the appellant is entitled to, if he had been compulsorily retired as per the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.