JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner State has assailed the judgment and order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar (the Tribunal) dated 22.09.2004 passed in Appeal No. 415 of 2001, whereby the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order dated 18.08.2000 terminating the services of the respondent, and it is further directed that the matter is remanded to the department for taking appropriate action under Discipline and Appeal Rules if deemed proper, after considering the observations made in the judgement. 2. The facts of the case as stated in the petition are that : 3. The respondent was appointed as an Agriculture Assistant in the year 1963. On 01.07.1982, he was sent on deputation with the Gujarat Land Development Corporation (GLDC) as an Agriculture Assistant. He proceeded on leave from 01.07.1993 to 24.09.1993, and thereafter, he filed an extension application for leave and never returned to resume his duties. The respondent was also served with various notices for resuming his duties. Lastly, a public notice was also given on 06.08.1999, which was published in the newspaper asking the respondent to resume his duties. Despite various notices, the respondent did not turn up for duties and his whereabouts were also not known to the Department. 4. A detailed inquiry was made by the Corporation, where the respondent was serving. The respondent also did not turn up in the departmental inquiry and ultimately by order dated 17.08.2000, he was (terminated) dismissed from service. The same was challenged by the respondent by filing Appeal No. 415 of 2001 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the dismissal order and directed the petitioner to take appropriate action under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (the Discipline and Appeal Rules) if deemed proper. The Tribunal also observed that if the petitioner so desired the respondent can be treated as voluntary retired from service. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Soni appearing on behalf of the petitioner-State has stated that the Tribunal has grossly erred in interfering with the order o dismissal as the respondent has remained defiant towards his service. He remained on unauthorized leave, despite giving various notices to him to resume his duties. Lastly, a public notice was also published, for securing his presence but he did not resume. He remained on unauthorized leave, despite giving various notices to him to resume his duties. Lastly, a public notice was also published, for securing his presence but he did not resume. He has stated that unauthorized absence can be said to be abandonment of service of the respondent. Hence, the Tribunal should not have interfered with the penalty of dismissal as the same is proportionate to the misconduct of the respondent. He has also stated that the respondent was also issued a charge-sheet dated 20.03.1989 for various irregularities and after holding a departmental inquiry, the charges were proved. He has stated that by order dated 25.05.2000, the penalty of stoppage of one increment was also imposed. He has stated that in order to avoid this penalty the respondent had left the country and had remained continuously absent and therefore, the order of the Tribunal deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhirendra Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that the judgment and order of the Tribunal does not require any interference. He has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly held that Rule 33 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959 (the BCSR) was amended and it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold departmental inquiry before dismissing the respondent from service since Rule 33 of the BCSR which provided for automatic termination was deleted. He has also relied upon the observations made by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has observed that the final decision was to be taken by GLDC, which was the Head of the Department of the respondent and not by the petitioner. He has also relied upon the observation made by the Tribunal that the respondent had applied for voluntary retirement on 16.05.1994 and it was open for the petitioner to refuse such application for voluntary retirement, if an inquiry on charges of mal practices was going on against the respondent. He has stated that the Tribunal was justified in observing that it was open for the petitioner to proceed under the provisions of Rule 189A of the BCSR as the respondent had superannuated. Lastly, he has submitted that the case of the respondent is required to be considered for voluntary retirement, as he had put more than 31 years of service. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. Lastly, he has submitted that the case of the respondent is required to be considered for voluntary retirement, as he had put more than 31 years of service. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. The documents on record are also perused. 8. At the outset it deserves to be noted that the impugned order dated 17.08.2000 refers to imposition of penalty of “(termination) dismissal”. Thus, the intention of the petitioner was to impose penalty of “termination” under Rule 33 of the BCSR as well as “dismissal” under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. The respondent was terminated/dismissed from service vide order dated 17.08.2005 on the ground that he had remained continuously absent from the service and despite giving various opportunities for him to resume his duties, he has chosen not to remain present. A bare perusal of the order dated 17.08.2000 reveals that the disciplinary authority has considered Rules 9 and 10 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules for imposing penalty of dismissal. The same provide for various penalties which are to be imposed upon a Government servant if he is found to have committed any is conduct in his service. It is pertinent to note that Rule 33 of the BCSR, on which the disciplinary authority has placed reliance, was deleted vide notification dated 09.06.1970 and thereafter Rule 33A of the BCSR was introduced vide notification dated 28.8.1971. Rule 33A of the BCSR governs the procedure of resignation which is not the subject matter of this petition. Rule 33 of the BCSR provided for automatic termination of employee if he remained absent. Thus, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority has solely relied on Rule 33 of the BCSR, but has also placed reliance on Rules 9 and 10 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Rule 9 and 10 of the said Rules provide for procedure for imposing the major penalties. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 S.C.C. 545 has observed that it is fairly well settled, that the legality or otherwise of an order passed by a statutory authority must be judged on the face thereof. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 S.C.C. 545 has observed that it is fairly well settled, that the legality or otherwise of an order passed by a statutory authority must be judged on the face thereof. It is also observed that mentioning of a wrong provision or omission to mention the correct provision would not invalidate an order so long as the power exists under any provision of law and they do not operate into two different fields requiring compliance of different pre-requisites. In the present case, indubitably, the respondent is governed by the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Hence, any of the penalties specified under the Rules can be imposed upon him. Rule 6(8) of the said Rules provides for dismissal. Though, the impugned order can be said to be inartistically worded, it cannot be said the same is passed de hors the Rules. The intention of the petitioner was to end the services of the respondent in wake of his defiant attitude for not reporting on duty. Thus, mentioning of wrong/incorrect provision of the Rules in the penalty order will not invalidate the same. Hence, the contention of learned Advocate Mr. Mehta that the penalty order deserves to be set aside as the same is passed under wrong Rules does not merit acceptance. 9. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dr. P.L. Pingla, reported in 2008(8)SCC 469: “Where the employee who is unauthorizedly absent does not report back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorised absence. Such disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty will depend upon the nature of service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/ explanation for the absence. … … …” 10. In the present case the fact remains that the respondent had abandoned his service without informing the department. The department was constrained to issued a public notice for securing his presence. … … …” 10. In the present case the fact remains that the respondent had abandoned his service without informing the department. The department was constrained to issued a public notice for securing his presence. In the blatant disregard of the aforesaid notices and the public notice, the respondent has chosen to remain absent. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner department was unjustified in passing the dismissal order. Thus, the Tribunal was not justified in not setting aside the penalty order. It is no more res integra that the Tribunal has very limited jurisdiction to set aside the penalty. 11. In the present case, the petitioner authority has relied upon the Discipline and Appeal Rules for dismissing the respondent from service. It will be apposite to refer to Rule 3 of Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. “RULE 3 : General. (1) Every Government servant shall at all times (i) maintain absolute integrity, (ii) maintain devotion to duty, and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant. [Explanation. A Government Servant, who habitually fails to perform a task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him, shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning of clause (ii).] RULE 3A : Promptness and Courtesy. No Government servant shall, (a) in the performance of his official duties, act in a discourteous manner. (b) in his official dealings with the public or otherwise adopt dilatory tactics or willfully cause delays in disposal of the work assigned to him. “The aforesaid Rule obliges the government servant to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty which the petitioner as blatantly violated. Rule 3A of the said Rules states that the government servant shall not act in a discourteous manner. The petitioner remained willfully absent from duty and he never cared to report or resume the duties. Thus, the petitioner has violated the parameters laid down in the aforesaid Rules and can be said to have committed gross misconduct in remaining absent unauthorizedly. He is not worthy of any sympathy. The Discipline and Appeal, Rules, 1971 prescribe the procedure under which the minor or major penalties suggested therein are to be imposed on a government servant. Thus, the petitioner has violated the parameters laid down in the aforesaid Rules and can be said to have committed gross misconduct in remaining absent unauthorizedly. He is not worthy of any sympathy. The Discipline and Appeal, Rules, 1971 prescribe the procedure under which the minor or major penalties suggested therein are to be imposed on a government servant. The conduct of a government employee working under the State Government is governed by Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971 which a government employee has to strictly adhere to. Any breach of the Conduct Rules will amount to misconduct. Hence, the petitioner on his volition has invited the order of dismissal by willfully remaining on unauthorized leave. 12. So far as the contention of the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent that he could not have been dismissed by the petitioner, as he was on deputation with the Corporation is also misconceived. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had informed the GLDC and after obtaining the permission to take necessary action against the respondent, the respondent was dismissed from service. The respondent had all the opportunities to tender his explanation when he was given various notices as well as the public notice. The public notice was issued on 06.08.1999 calling upon the respondent to present himself for defending the case failing which exparte action will be taken against him. The respondent ignored the same and acted in complete defiance. Thereafter, the inquiry was conducted by the Corporations and after approval of the GLDC, the petitioner passed the order of penalty. In my considered opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner had acted in complete violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent was given full opportunity to represent his case, but he disregarded the same. The petitioner can be said to have complied with procedural formalities, but it was the respondent who can be said to have been acted in defiance. Hence, the penalty imposed upon the respondent does not suffer from any violation of natural justice or it cannot be said the same is passed in complete disregard to the Rules. 13. The petitioner can be said to have complied with procedural formalities, but it was the respondent who can be said to have been acted in defiance. Hence, the penalty imposed upon the respondent does not suffer from any violation of natural justice or it cannot be said the same is passed in complete disregard to the Rules. 13. An employee working in a department is expected to adhere to the Conduct Rules and to the working environment of the department He has to maintain absolute honesty and integrity so that his acts may not result into any predicament to the smooth functioning of the department. The respondent has exhibited a recalcitrant behaviour by which the working of the petitioner department had suffered a lot. Earlier also he had remained absent for 88 days, and thereafter had continuously remained absent. Thus, he said to be a habitual absentee who had utter disregard for his duties. In view of the conduct demonstrated by the respondent, it cannot be said that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him is disproportionate. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal has grossly erred in setting aside the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. The observation of the Tribunal recommending voluntary retirement was also unwarranted in wake of such gross facts. 14. The upshot of the aforesaid observation and analysis is that the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar dated 22.09.2004 passed in Appeal No. 415 of 2001, is hereby quashed and set aside. RULE is made absolute accordingly. Rule made absolute.