Judgment 1. Vide Government Order No. 27-SKIMS of 2007 dated 2nd August 2007, petitioner has been terminated, from service of SKIMS Medical College and Hospital, Bemina by dint of Article 128 J&K, Civil Service Regulations for his willful unauthorized absence, retrospectively with effect from 17-08-2006. Same order is assailed by medium of this petition filed on 07-08-2014 i.e. after a lapse of seven years. 2. Admitted position as emerge is that the petitioner vide Government Order No.42-IMS of 1999 dated 25th September 1999 was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at SKIMS Medical College and Hospital, Bemina Srinagar, so has joined on 28-09-1999. 3. The petitioner had applied for sanction of earned leave on 17-08-2006 for a period of three months. Believing it to have been sanctioned, has proceeded on leave did not resume duties, instead sought extension of leave from time to time. According to the petitioner, he reported for duty in the month of August 2008 but was informed by the Principal, SKIMS Medical College that his service stand terminated which means that in the month of August 2008, according to him, he got the knowledge about his termination from service. No cogent or any satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for not challenging the order of termination till the year 2014 i.e. till the instant petition has been filed. On the face of it, petition deserves dismissal as hit by latches. 4. Aforesaid position apart even otherwise petitioner a doctor at his sweet will without sanction of the leave has remained absent with effect from 26th May 2006. It appears that he has worked in England. Petitioner a government servant by no stretch of imagination can have the privilege of leaving the department unauthorizedly even though he had applied for leave for a period of three months but in absence of its sanction, how could he dare to leave the station and to go to the green pastures i.e. to England in the lust of earning more money. 5. Taking notice of the unauthorized absence repeated requests have been made to the petitioner for resuming duty through print media which he has not responded ultimately after a gap of 14 months from the date of his unauthorized absence his service was terminated. 6. 5. Taking notice of the unauthorized absence repeated requests have been made to the petitioner for resuming duty through print media which he has not responded ultimately after a gap of 14 months from the date of his unauthorized absence his service was terminated. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have not adhered to the procedure for ordering termination i.e. no charge-sheet has been framed, no enquiry has been conducted, but this statement is repelled by the records and the reply filed by the respondents. The records as produced reveals that a show cause notice bearing No. SKIMs-MC/Adm 32/2006/2572-77 dated 01-12-2006 was published in the daily newspaper Aftab in its issue on 08-12-2006 asking petitioner to report back to his duties within 30 days which he failed. 7. A notice bearing SKIMS-MC/Adm/32/2007/129-35 dated 01-02-2007 was sent to the petitioner on his residential address, same was returned back by the postal authorities on 21-02-2007 with a remark that “the petitioner had gone to England”. 8. Regarding enquiry about the unauthorized absence, the Enquiry Committee was constituted. The Professor and HOD of Anesthesia (Enquiry Officer) vide his letter No. SKIMS-MC-ADM/139-44 dated 13-02-2007 had conveyed to the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Committee on 24-02-2007 along with documentary proof whatever he has in his defense. The said notice has been published in the newspaper on 17-02-2007. 9. The Director, SKIMS (Ex-Officio), Secretary to Government while constituting the enquiry committee vide Order. No. SKIMS-MC-30 of 2007 dated 01-02-2007 had sent a copy to the petitioner through registered post, same was returned with a remark that the “petitioner had left to England”. Another notice was sent on 26-2-2007 at his home address for his appearance on 17-03-2007, before the Enquiry Committee, again he failed. Finally, Director, SKIMS (Ex-officio) Secretary to Government has served charged sheet in the shape of final show cause notice to the petitioner vide No. SKIMS-MC-Adm/2007/452-59 dated 17-05-2007 through registered post as well as through print media by publishing it in a daily newspaper “Mirror of Kashmir” on 20-05-2007. 10. True it is that the petitioner may not have received the notice because he had left for England. According to Service Law, a Government employee who applies for earned leave has to leave the address for correspondence, whatever address was recorded in the application for grant of earned leave, on that address communications have been sent. 10. True it is that the petitioner may not have received the notice because he had left for England. According to Service Law, a Government employee who applies for earned leave has to leave the address for correspondence, whatever address was recorded in the application for grant of earned leave, on that address communications have been sent. Therefore it was for the petitioner to be vigilant. Show cause notice was published in Daily newspaper Mirror of Kashmir on 20-05-2007, again petitioner did not respond. 11. It is clear from the records that the appointment in favour of the petitioner was issued by Director, SKIMS (Ex - Officio) Secretary to the Government with proper approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister ( Chairman Governing Body, SKIMS) and the order of termination has also been issued by Director, SKIMS (Ex-Officio) Secretary to Government with proper approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister (Chairman Governing Body, SKIMS), therefore nothing wrong can be found with the order of termination issued. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some doctors with identical positions have been permitted to rejoin their service same has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. Meeting this argument, it is made clear that the petitioner was involved in a case registered as FIR No. 35/06 PS Nowgam for commission of offence punishable under section 304-A RPC, as he was alleged to have caused death of the patient due to negligence and recklessness. Law has to be followed in its strict sense. Petitioner was required to be vigilant. Once he has opted to be in a government service, he has to abide by the rules. 13. While applying for grant of earned leave he should have waited till it would have been sanctioned. Without caring for sanction he has left the country for a period of two years and then at his choice returned in the year 2008 and claimed that he had gone to the respondent department with his joining report in the month of August 2008 where the Principal informed him that his services have been terminated. If such an attitude of the government employee will be encouraged there will a chaos and everybody will take system for granted and will return back when they choose and will leave when they like. 14. If such an attitude of the government employee will be encouraged there will a chaos and everybody will take system for granted and will return back when they choose and will leave when they like. 14. Having opted to go to the greener pastures for earning money, petitioner cannot afford to say that he has not been given an opportunity of being heard against order of termination. The respondents authorities have taken all necessary steps i.e. notice has been sent, show cause notice has been issued, charge-sheet has been framed, Enquiry Committee has been constituted. Respondents have done whatever was expected of them and the petitioner has done what was not expected of him. He has left for England and has left the address for correspondence where he could not be served so it was for him to make an arrangement for responding to the communications. Respondents had only option to sent the notice at his given address which they did in addition they have also published it in the newspaper despite that he has not responded therefore order of termination passed does not suffer from any illegality. It shall be quite advantageous to quote Para 15 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2003 (1) SU page 76: 15. In this view of the matter, we hold that when a delinquent employee conceals his whereabouts or proceeds to a foreign country, without providing his fresh address and the authority, which conducts enquiry issues notice on the address available in the official record, then, in that eventuality, the delinquent employee cannot legitimately claim invalidation of his termination order on the grounds that no notice was served on him before he order was passed”. 15. System-having been taken foregranted by the petitioner is further cleared by his misconduct, on his own showing he had returned back in the month of August 2008 for resuming his duty which he was not permitted because according to him he was informed by the Principal that his service had been terminated despite this he has not filed any petition till the year 2014. It is in the year 2014, he has filed instant petition after lapse of more than six years without tendering any cogent and acceptable explanation. Such a late action cannot be condoned 16. It is in the year 2014, he has filed instant petition after lapse of more than six years without tendering any cogent and acceptable explanation. Such a late action cannot be condoned 16. Viewed from any angle, be it latches or merits, the order of termination as impugned is sustainable does not call for any interference. Petition is dismissed. The record as produced by the respondent department be returned through learned for the respondents. 17. Petition dismissed.