JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Jain for opposite party. 2. The petitioner’s services have been terminated vide order dated 14.5.2009 passed by Managing Director as contained in Annexure 1 in the writ petiton. The services have been terminated due to the fact that the petitioner remained absent for about 22 months without any authority or permission from the employer. Initially the petitioner moved an application for three days’ of casual leave but later on extended the leave till the end of next month. Petitioner did not join the services and letters written to him on 16.2.2012, 26.2.2012, 27.8.2012 and 6.4.2009 but the petitioner did not report for duties. The petitioner wrote letter dated 20.3.2009 that the leave may be extended till 20.5.2009 because of the illness of his wife but the petitioner did not annex any document to substantiate his application or to substantiate the illness of his wife. No medical certificate was placed before the authorities. The letter written by the opposite parties dated 6.4.2009 was returned back with the inscription that the person lives outside and no further address has been given by him. Later on special messenger was sent to the residence of the petitioner. The peon has been named who was sent with the termination order. He met his father who refused to take the termination order but did not communicate the address of his son. Finally the services have been terminated by the impugned order. 3. Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner’s services could not have been terminated without any inquiry. She submits that there are leave rules under Chapter VII (U.P. State Bridge Corporation Services Rules) sub-rule 3 of Clause XIII deals with the extraordinary leave. It provides that in case the person refused to resume the duty after the maximum period admissible, his services may be terminated after giving notice in writing to that effect. Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioner forcefully argued that no such notice was given to the petitioner, hence termination order is bad. 4. Sri Shishir Jain, on the other hand has relied upon paras 3, 4, 5 & 7 of his counter affidavit. In nut-shell he has argued that several letters were written on the address available with the department. Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioner forcefully argued that no such notice was given to the petitioner, hence termination order is bad. 4. Sri Shishir Jain, on the other hand has relied upon paras 3, 4, 5 & 7 of his counter affidavit. In nut-shell he has argued that several letters were written on the address available with the department. Petitioner had not changed his address and the leave applications were being sent from the same address. In such a situation it cannot be said that notice was not given to him and the termination order has been passed in violation of Clause XIII sub Rule 3 of the Rules. 5. The petitioner has relied upon on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178 . In this case Their Lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court have mainly held that in case a person remains on unauthorized leave, it shall be the duty of opposite party to establish that the absence is willful. In case, the petitioner has been able to establish that there were situation under which it was impossible for him either to join services or to get permission from department, then the services cannot be terminated. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that there were attending circumstances which stopped the petitioner from coming to the office or to get the necessary permission from department. Only one application states about some illness of his wife but no medical certificate has been annexed nor it has been stated that there are circumstances which do not allow him to come to the office for joining or for getting permission. 7. Sri Shishir Jain has relied upon the case in the matter of Vijay S Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. and others, 2013(4) ESC 580 (SC). In para 9 Their Lordships have held as follows: “9. It is a settled law that an employee cannot be termed as a slave, he has a right to abandon the services any time voluntarily by submitting his resignation and alternatively, not joining the duty and remaining absent for long. In para 9 Their Lordships have held as follows: “9. It is a settled law that an employee cannot be termed as a slave, he has a right to abandon the services any time voluntarily by submitting his resignation and alternatively, not joining the duty and remaining absent for long. Absence from duty in the beginning may be a misconduct but when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntarily abandonment of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer.” 8. This Court is in respectful agreement with the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court. It feels that there are no exceptional circumstances in the present case. The petitioner has willfully absented from duty which will amount to abandonment of services as envisaged by the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, no inquiry was necessary and hence there is no violation of any principle of natural justice. The petitioner remained absent for twenty two months altogether without any authority or without showing that he was unable to attend the office. 9. No case is made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of termination is upheld by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and as such deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ——————