JUDGMENT : Instant intra court appeal has been filed against order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant who is a doctor & joined service as CAS on 24.01.1976 went for foreign assignment with prior permission for one year to Libya & left on 05.09.1984 and after expiry of the period of one year for which permission was granted by the employer in the ordinary course he was supposed to report back to duty but as it is happening that the doctors once go abroad never report back & join their duty & sent letters seeking extension and this what happened in the instant case as well that after the expiry of the period of one year for which permission was granted to him he failed to report on duty & sent letters as alleged seeking extension of time but no extension was granted to him and he reported back after six years to duty on 13.09.1989. 3. However, he was permitted to join & also given adhoc promotion on the post of Junior Specialist on 24.04.1990 and for the alleged delinquency of wilful absence from the duty being committed a regular charge-sheet u/R 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 dated 13.11.1995 was served upon him. It is not the case of the appellant that the charges levelled against him for holding disciplinary enquiry under the Disciplinary Rules, 1958 is not the misconduct under the Conduct Rules, 1971. After the written reply was filed and the Enquiry Officer was appointed at that stage the appellant approached to this Court by filing writ petition-2741/1997 and his grievance was that the charge-sheet has been belatedly served upon him and further submitted that after he has been given ad-hoc promotion to the post of Junior Specialist vide order dated 24.04.1990 his past misconduct stands absolved and not open to be inquired by serving him a charge-sheet & also raised objection that as he has retired from service pending proceedings before the learned Single Judge seeking voluntary retirement while in service the enquiry not to be proceeded any further in reference to charge-sheet dated 13.11.1995. 4. 4. After taking into consideration the material on record the learned Single Judge arrived to a conclusion that the charge in respect of wilful absence certainly required to be enquired upon under the Scheme of Rules,1958 for which charge-sheet dated 13.11.1995 was served and directed the employer to conclude the enquiry obviously after affording a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent under its order impugned dated 20.04.2010 and that is the subject matter of challenge in the instant intra-court appeal. 5. Counsel for appellant reiterated submissions made before the learned Single Judge & further submits that act of the respondent is discriminatory and in some of the cases they have regularised wilful absence of the doctors who went on foreign assignment but didn't report back to duty and once such decision has been taken it is not open for the respondent in initiating enquiry in the case of the present appellant. 6. Sh. Inderjeet Singh AAG submits that the learned Single Judge considered the material in totality & once the charge-sheet has been served for the alleged misconduct being committed by the delinquent, there is no such limitation provided for the alleged misconduct to serve charge-sheet under the Scheme of Rules,1958 unless delay could be said to be fatal and further submits that as regards the discrimination is concerned, each case has to be looked into on its own facts and for the alleged misconduct which the delinquent has committed, he could not have been absolved and will have the opportunity to submit his defence in the pending enquiry initiated against him pursuant to charge-sheet dated 13.11.1995 and this what the learned Single Judge has considered in passing order impugned and that does not require any interference. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. The facts which have come on record are that the appellant was permitted for foreign assignment for a period of one year to Libya & he left on 05.09.1984 and after completion of the year in question he was supposed to report back and there was no extension granted by the State Government or permission to continue with the foreign assignment and indisputably he reported back to duty on 13.09.1989 and for the alleged misconduct of wilful absence from duty which indisputably is a misconduct under the Conduct Rules,1971 a charge sheet u/R 16 of the CCA Rules was served upon him dated 13.11.1995 and pending enquiry before the disciplinary officer could arrived to any conclusion the appellant approached to this Court by filing writ petition and after rejection of the writ petition he is before this Court in the intra court appeal. 8. As regards the submission made by counsel for appellant that there was delay in serving charge-sheet is without substance for the reason that the delay in itself cannot be said to be fatal and denies him in submitting defence and that was never the case of the appellant. In the instant case the allegation against the delinquent appellant is in respect of wilful absence from duty based on documentary evidence and is in his possession, the delay in our considered view could not be considered to be fatal which could deprive him to submit defence in the pending enquiry initiated pursuant to charge-sheet dated 13.11.1995. 9. As regards the plea of discrimination prayed for by the appellant is concerned as we have already observed that each case has to be looked into on its own facts and apart from it if that being so as contended by appellant's counsel at least will not absolve the appellant from the alleged misconduct being committed of wilful absence for which charge-sheet was served upon him dated 13.11.1995. 10. 10. As regards the further submission that he was promoted on the post of Junior Specialist in condoning the past alleged misconduct if any is without substance and the learned Single Judge considered the matter in detail and the fact that he has retired from service in addition to it may not persuade us to take a lenient view for the alleged misconduct if any committed by an employee while in service. The learned Single Judge also considered the material in detail under order impugned and we do not find any error being committed which may require interference. Consequently, the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of as above - Order of single judge sustained.