ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on daily wages basis on 16.09.1981. After being made permanent, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Forest Conservator on 02.06.1997. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 02.11.2008, his uncle suddenly fell ill and in the emergent circumstances, he sought an immediate leave and left from his place of service. Thereafter, by telephonic communication, he requested the respondent authorities to extend his leave. Petitioner thereafter resumed his duties on 21.11.2008 and on that date, he conducted the regular site inspection and found illegal cutting of trees. 3. Petitioner averred that he sent an information of the said fact to the concerned authorities. On 08.06.2009, he was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Vide charge-sheet, two charges were framed, firstly, the unauthorised leave of about 18 days and secondly, negligence in discharging of duties as there was illegal cutting of 25 trees from the site under the control of petitioner during the period of 03.11.2008 to 20.11.2008 which caused the loss of Rs. 27,325/- to the State Government. 4. Petitioner filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet and averred that during the tenure when the alleged cutting of trees had taken place, he was on leave and therefore, he can not be held liable for the same. 5. By order dated 25.08.2009, it was held that the petitioner was guilty for negligence in the services and also of remaining absent from duties for a period of 18 days without sanction. As a consequence thereof, the punishment/penalty of recovery of Rs. 27,325/- was imposed on the petitioner although the leave of 18 days was ordered to be sanctioned. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that as a matter of fact, he was on leave with the sanction of the departmental authorities and therefore, he was not responsible for the cutting of trees during that period. Counsel has further stated that the petitioner was vigilant enough and had informed the authorities of the incident on the same date of joining the services i.e. 21.11.2008. Counsel further submitted that as his leave had ultimately been sanctioned, he cannot be punished for any incident which occurred during that period of sanctioned leave. 7. Counsel has further stated that the petitioner was vigilant enough and had informed the authorities of the incident on the same date of joining the services i.e. 21.11.2008. Counsel further submitted that as his leave had ultimately been sanctioned, he cannot be punished for any incident which occurred during that period of sanctioned leave. 7. Per contra, counsel for the respondents has stated that not a single document has been placed on record to substantiate the averments of the petitioner. The petitioner had never applied for leave and never was the leave sanctioned prior to 25.08.2019. He has further submitted that had the petitioner informed the authorities of the incident on the date of his rejoining i.e. 21.11.2008, it would have been in writing. No such document has been placed on record and therefore, this version of the petitioner can also not be relied upon. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the reply as filed by the petitioner in response to the notice issued under Rule 17 of CCA Rules, 1958 shows that the petitioner has averred that he had applied for leave and had forwarded the leave application to the concerned authority i.e. Regional Forest Officer, Range Satasar. The petitioner has further averred in the said reply that the C.L. dated 02.11.2008 and the joining letter dated 21.11.2008 have also been annexed and placed on record. No such documents as submitted by the petitioner have been placed on record. On being questioned, it has been admitted by the counsel that the same had not been placed on record at any stage. 10. In view of the same, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner ever applied for leave and the same was ever sanctioned. So far as the information by the petitioner to the respondent authorities about the incident of cutting of trees is concerned, the same is also not proved on record and hence any finding to the positive cannot be arrived at. 11. In view of the above observations, the impugned order dated 25.08.2009 is held to be valid and the punishment as imposed by the said order upon the petitioner is affirmed. Consequently, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.