JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Audit Officer on 21.05.1994 and he was promoted to the post of Audit Officer in the year 2004. He was transferred as Audit Officer of Jorhat Circle by an order dated 28.05.2009. Subsequently, in the month of March, 2014, the petitioner was transferred as Audit Officer to Karimganj, where he is still continuing. 3. The pleaded case of the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner, while serving in Jorhat, was afflicted with Psoriasis. Because of the aforesaid illness, the petitioner had to go on leave on many occasions for various periods. On 08.05.2014, a show cause notice under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, “1964 Rules”) read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India was issued requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1964 Rules shall not be inflicted upon him on the charges and the statement of allegations indicated therein. In the said show cause, amongst others, it was noted that the petitioner was found absent from duty w.e.f. 08.08.2013 to 31.08.2013 without any information to the authority. It was also asserted that the petitioner had not submitted weekly diaries (i) w.e.f. 10.12.2011; (ii) 04.08.2012 to 30.03.2013 and (iii) 03.06.2013 to 28.10.2013. 4. The petitioner responded to the said show cause notice vide his reply dated 15.07.2014, wherein he had stated that leave may be required for the period (i) 05.12.2011 to 31.03.2012; (ii) 30.07.2012 to 30.03.2013 and (iii) 03.06.2013 to 30.03.2014. It is also stated therein that he could not submit the weekly diaries because of his illness. The petitioner by filing an additional affidavit on 27.07.2017 has stated that all pending weekly diaries and reports pertaining to Jorhat Circle had been submitted before the appropriate authority. 5. Mr. Borpujari has submitted that after the submission of the show cause reply by the petitioner, no further steps had been taken in the departmental proceeding. 6. The petitioner by filing an additional affidavit on 27.07.2017 has stated that all pending weekly diaries and reports pertaining to Jorhat Circle had been submitted before the appropriate authority. 5. Mr. Borpujari has submitted that after the submission of the show cause reply by the petitioner, no further steps had been taken in the departmental proceeding. 6. As the petitioner was not receiving salary from February, 2011, by this writ application, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to grant leave of absence to him on medical ground and to release the salary, which was held up from February, 2011 with all consequential benefits. As the subject matter of this writ petition is not the departmental proceeding drawn up against the petitioner, it will not be necessary for this Court to dilate on that aspect. 7. Taking note of the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner from time to time, the Director of Audit (Local Fund), Guwahati issued a letter dated 28.10.2014 to the Chairman, State Standing Medical Board & Additional Director of Health Service requesting him to ask the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board to examine his existing state of health condition in support of the medical certificates, which were furnished therewith and to furnish a report as to whether the petitioner is capable of continuing in Government service. 8. On being called upon by the Chairman, State Standing Medical Board & Additional Director of Health Service, the petitioner duly appeared before the Medical Board on 07.11.2014 and the Medical Board had opined that the petitioner has been suffering from Psoriasis and Osteoarthritis changes in right knee joint. It was also opined that the petitioner was not presently having any major medical condition. 9. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2, in Paragraphs-4 and 6, it is stated as under:- “4. That the statements made in paragraph 6 of the instant writ petition are borne out of records. In this regard the answering deponent begs to state that as per Para-44 of the Assam Audit Manual at page-29, any lapse on the part of the Audit Officer in submission of the audit report in time will be treated as dereliction of duty and shall be coming within the purview of the provisions of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The Audit Officers are required to conduct audit of the accounts and their attendance to the works are ascertained by weekly diary. As per Para-74 of the Assam Audit Manual at page-39, every Audit Officer are required to submit the weekly diary as per Form No.12, showing the work done by the Audit Officer and the Assistant Audit Officer to the Assistant Director of Audit of the concerned Circle under whom such Audit Officer and the Assistant Audit Officer are working. The weekly diary shall be dispatched in the last day of the week, and if the last day of the week is a holiday or subsequent days are holidays, then the weekly diary shall be dispatched on the next opening day. 6. That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the instant writ petition, the answering deponent begs to reiterate what has been stated hereinabove in paragraph 4. In this regard it is further stated that due to non-submission of weekly diaries by the Petitioner since 24.07.2010, and due to un-authorised absence and non-reporting in office by the Petitioner, as informed by the Assistant Director of Audit (Local Fund), Jorhat Circle vide communication dated 31.08.2010 and 27.04.2011, as well as, in terms of official communications dated 30.05.2011, 16.03.2012 and 23.06.2012 the salary of the Petitioner has been held up in accordance with FR-17 of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules. Pertinently, the Proviso to FR-17 provides that an officer who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence.” 10. Mr. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the medical certificates had been submitted from time to time when the petitioner could not attend to his duties, it appears that the petitioner had not submitted formal leave applications and, therefore, it will be essential for the petitioner to submit appropriate leave applications before the competent authority as payment of salary is inter-connected with grant of leave. He has submitted that the petitioner will submit appropriate leave applications before the Director of Audit (Local Fund) and this Court may direct the Director of Audit (Local Fund) to consider the said leave applications to regularise the leave of absence within a time-frame, which may be considered appropriate by this Court. He has submitted that the petitioner will submit appropriate leave applications before the Director of Audit (Local Fund) and this Court may direct the Director of Audit (Local Fund) to consider the said leave applications to regularise the leave of absence within a time-frame, which may be considered appropriate by this Court. He has further submitted that salary cannot be withheld on the alleged ground that the petitioner had not submitted weekly diaries. 11. Abiding by the stand taken in the affidavit, Mr. Borpujari submits that salary of the petitioner has been held up due to non-submission of weekly diaries by the petitioner and due to unauthorised absence in accordance with FR-17 of the Fundamental Rules and, therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 13. FR-17 provides that subject to any exceptions specifically made in the Rules and to the provisions of Sub-rule (2), which provides the date from which a person recruited overseas shall commence to draw pay on his first appointment shall be determined by the general or special orders of the State Government, an officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. Proviso to FR-17 provides that an Officer, who is absent from duty without any authority, shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence. 14. Non-submission of weekly report by an Audit Officer cannot be equated with absence from duty. Absence from duty and non-submission of weekly report are entirely two different things. Mr. Borpujari has not been able to show any specific provision of any Rule/Notification, which entitles the respondents to hold up salary for non-submission of weekly reports. In absence of any provision authorising withholding of salary on account of non-submission of weekly diaries, the respondents cannot withhold salary on that count. It is already noticed that because of non-submission of weekly diaries, show cause notice under Rule 9 was served upon the petitioner on 08.05.2014. 15. In absence of any provision authorising withholding of salary on account of non-submission of weekly diaries, the respondents cannot withhold salary on that count. It is already noticed that because of non-submission of weekly diaries, show cause notice under Rule 9 was served upon the petitioner on 08.05.2014. 15. In the letter dated 28.10.2014 issued by the Director of Audit (Local Fund) addressed to the Chairman, State Standing Medical Board & Additional Director of Health Service for evaluation of physical fitness of the petitioner, it is noted that the petitioner had been found to be continuously remaining un-authorisedly absent from his duties on the plea of his ill-health by submitting medical certificates from time to time. That the petitioner has been suffering from Psoriasis is also fortified by the findings recorded by the Medical Board. However, in the show cause notice dated 08.05.2014, the petitioner was alleged to be absent from duty without any information to the authority only for a short period w.e.f. 08.08.2013 to 31.08.2013. The petitioner himself, in his show cause reply dated 15.07.2014, had indicated that leave may be required for the period which had been already mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. 16. Having regard to the submissions advanced and on a consideration of the materials on record, I am of the opinion that ends of justice will be sub-served if the petitioner is permitted to make formal applications before the Director of Audit (Local Fund) for grant of leave to regularise for the period of absence. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file formal applications before the Director of Audit (Local Fund) within a period of 10(ten) days from today and in the event of filing of any such applications, the Director of Audit (Local Fund) will consider the applications, within a period of 4(four) months from the date of submission of the said applications, in accordance with law on its own merit. Consequent upon such consideration of leave applications, the salary of the petitioner, as may be found admissible and payable, will be paid with increments to which the petitioner may be entitled to. 17. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.