JUDGMENT : 1. D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.891/2019:- For the reasons mentioned in the application for early hearing, the same is allowed. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.288/2011:- The appellant challenges the judgment dated 28/08/2009 dismissing writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 29/01/1992 terminating her services as also the judgment dated 20/08/2001 passed by the Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutional Tribunal, Jaipur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the order terminating her services. 2. The appellant joined as a Lecturer in Economics in Agrawal College established by Agrawal Education Society as a probationer on 21/01/1985. The period of probation was one year. It was extended for another year. She was confirmed on 21/01/1987. 3. But prior thereto, while on probation, she submitted an application on 17/08/1986 seeking leave, which was sanctioned upto 05/09/1987. It was extended upto 10/09/1987 without any pay. The appellant joined when the extended sanctioned leave period came to be over and applied for leave on medical grounds from 14/03/1988 to 04/05/1988. It was sanctioned. She resumed duty on 05/05/1988. She applied for maternity leave for three months from 18/07/1988 onward. The same was sanctioned. She resumed duties on 15/10/1988. Diwali break ensued. She reported back after Diwali break on 14/11/1988 and on the same day applied for leave for two years from 14/11/1988 onward. The Management Committee decided on 24/12/1988 to grant her leave without pay upto 30/06/1989. Before expiry of the leave granted which was to expire on 30/06/1989, appellant applied for leave to be extended on medical grounds from 01/07/1989 to 28/02/1990. The leave was not sanctioned. On 08/03/1990 she was informed that she was willfully absent and no extension of leave was sanctioned. The appellant made a representation for leave to be extended. Taking a lenient and compassionate view leave was extended from 01/07/1989 to 28/02/1990 without pay with a warning that she should join back. The appellant never reported back. She sought extension of leave upto 22/12/1990. The same was refused. Charge-sheet dated 13/01/1992 for unauthorised absence was issued. Same was sent at the address on which the parties had been corresponding earlier. The appellant did not respond to the charge-sheet. 4. The appellant never reported back. She sought extension of leave upto 22/12/1990. The same was refused. Charge-sheet dated 13/01/1992 for unauthorised absence was issued. Same was sent at the address on which the parties had been corresponding earlier. The appellant did not respond to the charge-sheet. 4. In view of the correspondences exchanged between the parties showing leaves sanctioned from time to time and not extended as noted hereinabove the Managing Committee which was the disciplinary authority opined that no enquiry needs to be held since facts were not in dispute. Prolong absence without leave sanctioned being treated as a misdemeanor, penalty imposing termination of service was inflicted. 5. The first contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the charge-sheet dated 13/01/1992 was not received by her. The Management filed a letter dated 30/07/1992 written by the Department of Posts certifying therein that the docket sent to the appellant by registered post was delivered at the address on 16/01/1992. 6. Taking note of the said letter written by the Department of Posts and the fact that the charge-sheet was issued at the same address on which the appellant was communicating with the college authorities the learned Single Judge has held that the assertion of the appellant that she was not served with the charge-sheet cannot be accepted. 7. We concur. The facts noted hereinabove establish that the appellant was served with the charge-sheet. 8. The second contention urged was that once the Management decided to proceed with a charge-sheet it became mandatory to hold an enquiry. The learned Single Judge has held that in the absence of any reply to the charge-sheet and the facts whereon the charge-sheet was issued concerned the correspondences exchanged between the parties and leave not being extended and in-spite thereof appellant not joining service, there was no disputed question of fact which warranted an enquiry and thus has upheld the decision taken by the Managing Committee. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant urges once again that it was mandatory for the enquiry to be conducted by appointing an enquiry officer. 10. Commonsense guides. If a disputed question of fact or rival versions emerge warranting an opinion as to which version is correct, only then an enquiry needs to be held by appointing an enquiry officer. 11. In the instant case, the facts were not in dispute. 10. Commonsense guides. If a disputed question of fact or rival versions emerge warranting an opinion as to which version is correct, only then an enquiry needs to be held by appointing an enquiry officer. 11. In the instant case, the facts were not in dispute. The facts as noted above would show that after the leave without pay was extended lastly upto 28/02/1990. The appellant did not report back. Letters sent her to join back were responded with the plea that she would join back when she will be physically fit but in view of the facts stated hereinabove there was no leave credit to the account of the appellant and for last two years she was sanctioned leave without pay in-spite thereof, she did not join back. She did not join back till when charge-sheet was issued on 13/01/1992. She did not join back till when her services were terminated. 12. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that it is a case of misconduct, justifying termination of appellant's service. 13. The appeal is dismissed.