JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction on the respondent authorities to sanction the leave of the petitioner as authorized absent and also prayed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner has joined the service as Assistant Engineer in the State Government, R & B Department on 07.08.1980. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.04.2001 while working at Padra, District Vadodara, he suffered heart attack and was hospitalized. He was advised complete rest and thereafter, the petitioner applied for medical leave from 10.04.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that since he needed better treatment, he left for Canada on 12.11.2002 and he used to regularly send medical certificates to the respondent authorities from there. Thereafter, he resumed his duty on 17.01.2004 and was posted at Nadiad. Since the petitioner was not keeping good health, he submitted an application to the Deputy Secretary for voluntary retirement and requested to relieve him with effect from 31.03.2004. The request was forwarded with recommendation by the Superintendent Engineer and retirement papers were also processed. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet inter alia alleging that the petitioner had remained unauthorized absent from 10.04.2001 to 21.01.2004. A departmental inquiry was held and vide report dated 01.04.2005, the charges levelled against the present petitioner was proved. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply to the report of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, thereafter considered the same and imposed the penalty of removal from services vide order dated 03.01.2007. 3. Learned advocate Mr.P.H.Pathak appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry was held illegal since the petitioner was not heard in the departmental proceedings. He has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to voluntary retirement since his case was also recommended by the Superintendent Engineer. He has also submitted that since the petitioner had suffered a massive heart attack and he required better treatment, he went to Canada and thereafter, he proceeded on leave. Thus, he has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to voluntary retirement since he had completed 20 years of service. He has further submitted that the respondent should have referred his case to the Medical Board for examining his medical condition, and since the respondents have failed to do so, the removal order of the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. He has further submitted that the respondent should have referred his case to the Medical Board for examining his medical condition, and since the respondents have failed to do so, the removal order of the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Pathak for the petitioner has submitted that the address of the Canada was already available to the respondent authorities; however, they did not choose to inform him. He has further submitted that the respondent authorities have not considered that the petitioner has absented due to his ill-health. 5. Learned AGP Mr.Ronak Raval has submitted that the petitioner is responsible for the misconduct as he remained on leave for 1018 days without the permission of the respondent authorities. He has submitted that the petitioner did not respond to the communications of the respondent authorities went abroad without the prior approval of the authorities. He has also submitted that in fact the petitioner has admitted that he was absent from 10.04.2001 to 22.01.2004 and has claimed that the said period may be treated as authorized leave. Thus, he has submitted that in view of the admission of the petitioner, no detailed departmental inquiry was required to be held. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors. V/s. T.T.Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and submitted that it is the duty of the employee to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. He has further submitted that the petitioner on the pretext of getting better treatment has proceeded to Canada and remained absent and after a period of three years when he returned to India, he went to resume his duty. 6. Learned AGP Mr.Ronak Raval has submitted that, thereafter the petitioner was allowed to resume and a charge-sheet was served upon him for the aforesaid misconduct of remaining absent. He has submitted that the petitioner through his power of attorney had filed a reply to the charge-sheet also. Thus, he has submitted that the petitioner personally does not remain present in the departmental proceedings and it was conducted after considering the defence of the petitioner. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may not be quashed and set aside. 7. Thus, he has submitted that the petitioner personally does not remain present in the departmental proceedings and it was conducted after considering the defence of the petitioner. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may not be quashed and set aside. 7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. The documents as pointed out are also perused. 8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has remained absent for 1018 days from 10.04.2001to 22.01.2004, and he has admitted his absence. On 25.05.2001, the petitioner made an application to the respondent authorities requesting for sanction of his leave in order to visit abroad. However, the aforesaid application was not sanctioned, despite that the petitioner without obtaining any prior approval of the respondent authorities proceeded to Canada and stayed there till he resumed on 17.01.2004. Thereafter, he made an application for voluntary retirement, which was also not acceded by the State Government. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner proceeded again to abroad on the presumption that his application for voluntary retirement will be accepted. The contention of the petitioner that he was regularly sending the medical certificates from the abroad and hence, the impugned order of removal from service requires interference; does not merit acceptance and is misconceived and requires to be rejected since the petitioner being Class- II Officer, was expected that he should not have left abroad without obtaining any prior approval from the authorities. The Supreme Court in the case of T.T.Murali Babu (supra) while examining the conduct of an employee has observed thus : “17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold. 31. It is apt to note here that in the said case the respondent had remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for six months and admitted his guilt and explained the reasons for his absence by stating that he neither had any intention nor desire to disobey the order of superior authority or violated any of the rules or regulations but the reason was purely personal and beyond his control. Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix, the Court interfered with the punishment on the ground of proportionality. The facts in the present case are quite different. As has been seen from the analysis made by the High Court, it has given emphasis on past misconduct of absence and first time desertion and thereafter proceeded to apply the doctrine of proportionality. The aforesaid approach is obviously incorrect. It is telltale that the respondent had remained absent for a considerable length of time. He had exhibited adamantine attitude in not responding to the communications from the employer while he was unauthorisedly absent. As it appears, he has chosen his way, possibly nurturing the idea that he can remain absent for any length of time, apply for grant of leave at any time and also knock at the doors of the court at his own will. 32. Learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that he had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual absenteeism” is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. Learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that he had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of “habitual absenteeism” is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate. 33. Another aspect needs to be noted. The respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to his official position, it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in an organization. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a passage from Government of India and another v. George Philip: - “In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty, granting six months’ time to join duty amounts to not only giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of the work culture in the organization. Article 51-A(j)of the Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the tendency to negate or destroy the same.” We respectfully reiterate the said feeling and re-state with the hope that employees in any organization should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organization. When we say this, we may not be understood to have stated that the employers should be harsh to impose grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable atmosphere in an organization develops the work culture and the employer and the employees are expected to remember the same as a precious value for systemic development.” 9. The Supreme Court has observed that the employees in any organization should adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal excellence but for collective good of an organization. It is further observed that looking to the official position, in the present case, the petitioner was Class-II employee and it was expected of him to maintain discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. 10. Unquestionably, the petitioner went to an abroad without there being any permission/sanction of the respondent authorities. The petitioner has admitted that he went to abroad for the aforenoted period and thereafter, when he returned, he has requested treating the period of absence as authorized leave. The petitioner was given an opportunity and show cause notice to explain his conduct, which he had replied to the same. In view of his admission, it was not required by the respondent authorities to hold a full-fledged departmental inquiry. The petitioner was called upon to give explanation to the charge-sheet as well as show cause notice, which was replied by his power of attorney. 11. In wake of the fact that, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. & Ors. V/s. Goparaju Shri Prabhakara Hari Babu, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569 , wherein it has been observed thus : “16. Indisputably, respondent was a habitual absentee. He in his explanation, in answer to the charge sheet pleaded guilty admitting the charges. In terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. It was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed. Before the enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation that his mother being ill. He, despite opportunities granted to report to duty, did not do it. He failed to explain even his prior conduct. 17. In Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) through LRs & Ors. Before the enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation that his mother being ill. He, despite opportunities granted to report to duty, did not do it. He failed to explain even his prior conduct. 17. In Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) through LRs & Ors. 2005 (11) SCC 314 , this Court noticing Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, held : "214. In terms of the aforementioned provision, things admitted need not be proved. In view of the admission of Respondent 1 alone, the issue as regards allotment of 6475 shares should have been answered in favour of the appellants. The company petitioner at a much later stage could not be permitted to take a stand which was contrary to or inconsistent with the original pleadings nor could she be permitted to resile from her admissions contained therein. 18. It was observed that judicial admissions can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. 19. A subsequent explanation before another authority, which had not been pleaded in the departmental proceedings, cannot by itself a ground to hold that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with in the disciplinary proceedings.” 12. The afore-noted contention of learned advocate Mr.Pathak that the authorities have not considered that the petitioner was absent due to medical leave, does not merit acceptance since in his reply to the chargesheet he has admitted that he has left to Canada after he suffered the heart attack and had remained on leave till 22.01.2004 on the ground of health reasons. The Inquiry Officer has very well considered the aforesaid aspect and it is pertinent to note that, despite the issuance of charge-sheet, he did not think fit to appear personally before the Inquiry Officer and hence, the Inquiry Officer after threadbare examining of all the facts has concluded that the petitioner has remained unauthorized absence because his leave was never sanctioned. The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration all the letters issued to the petitioner on 13.05.2004, 01.06.2004 and 01.07.2004 whereby he was called upon to remain present and report for duty; however, the same was ignored and defied by him. Thus, the petitioner can be said to be totally negligent in his duties since he did not even think it fit to respond to the aforesaid letters calling upon him to resume his duty. Thus, the petitioner can be said to be totally negligent in his duties since he did not even think it fit to respond to the aforesaid letters calling upon him to resume his duty. The contention of the petitioner, that the respondents were aware of his address at Canada, and they were supposed to communicate him at Canada, is ill-conceived. The respondent authorities are not supposed to enter into any communication with the petitioner at his convenience in wake of the fact that he was not issued any sanction or permission to leave India. Thus, from the conduct of the petitioner, it emerges, that he has utter disregard for his duties, and hence, he is not entitled to voluntary retirement. It is no more res integra that a government employee cannot claim voluntary retirement as a matter of right on the ground that he has completed requisite number of years, but the same depends on the approval of the state government. 13. In the present case, pursuant to the issuance of charge-sheet, the petitioner vide his reply dated 01.04.2005 has admitted that he had gone abroad after he suffered heart attack and was absent from 10.04.2004 to 22.01.2004. In view of the undisputed fact that the petitioner had remained unauthorized absent for 1018 days, the State Government was justified in refusing the request of the petitioner for treating him voluntary retirement after the service of 20 years. The absenteeism of the petitioner for the aforementioned period can be expressed as a serious misconduct and, he is not worthy of any compassion. 14. On the bedrock of the foregoing observations and analysis, the present writ petition fails. Rule is discharged.