JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J: This appeal is filed under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order dated 27.01.2020 passed by the learned single judge in WP(S) No. 4275 of 2016, by which the period from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 has been directed to regularise by quashing the decision so taken as under order 27.04.2005 and 31.03.2016 with a direction to treat the said period to be as a continuity in service and to calculate the same for making the payment of her salary as well as her retirement benefits to be paid within a stipulated period of 6 weeks. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It appears from the pleading as referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 07.02.1983 and accordingly she started discharging her duty. While discharging the duty as such, the writ petitioner was deputed to another school vide memo dated 22.06.1984, i.e. the Silwar Middle School, Hazaribagh and that time she had made an application for her transfer to Patna vide application dated 11.07.1986, but her request was not accelerate to, rather she has been directed to join in the earlier place of posting i.e. Surajpura Primary School, Barhi-I, Hazaribagh and she was relieved. Accordingly the writ petitioner was rendering her service with all satisfaction and on attaining the superannuation, writ petitioner was retired on 30.04.2015. Her retrial benefit were calculated and paid but without counting the period from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992, which has been considered as period of unauthorised absence. 3. The writ petitioner being aggrieved had approached to authority by raising the ground that the period from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 cannot be termed as unauthorised absence in absence of any inquiry, since, a declaration regarding the unauthorised absence is to be recorded on consideration of the defence of the writ petitioner also but even without show-cause notice or departmental proceeding, it has been considered as unauthorised absence. The authority concerned had passed order rejecting the claim vide order dated 27.04.2015, which was passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, which has been affirmed by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 31.03.2016. 4. The authority concerned had passed order rejecting the claim vide order dated 27.04.2015, which was passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, which has been affirmed by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 31.03.2016. 4. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with both the orders have approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(S) No. 4275 of 2016 by taking the ground that there is no consideration by the administrative authorities for holding the period from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 to be authorised, since, there is no inquiry to that effect. 5. The learned Single Judge has accepted the aforesaid ground and has quashed the order dated 27.04.2015 and 31.03.2016 by holding the writ petitioner entitled for the benefits for the aforesaid period, i.e. from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992. 6. The learned counsel for the State appellant has submitted that although the order has been complied with by virtue of order passed by the contempt court, but, since the appeal is lying pending, it needs to be decided on merit. 7. It has been contended that the learned single judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective that the writ petitioner admittedly has not performed her duty from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 and as such on that pretext, the appellant have came to the conclusion declaring the said period to be an unauthorised absence, the same suffers with error, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-writ petitioner has submitted depending upon the order passed by the learned single judge, an absence cannot be said to be an unauthorised in absence of any enquiry, more so, in this case, no opportunity even no show-cause has been given to the writ petitioner and by taking due consideration of these facts, the learned single judge has held that writ petitioner is entitled for the benefits for the said period, the same cannot be said to suffer from the error. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 10. The issue which is to be considered as to whether the period of absence can be said to be unauthorised absence in absence of any enquiry. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 10. The issue which is to be considered as to whether the period of absence can be said to be unauthorised absence in absence of any enquiry. The law is well settled that all absence cannot be said to be unauthorised, unless, in an inquiry if it comes that the absence is wilful and for that, a finding recorded by the inquiry officer is needed. Reference in this regard is made in the judgment rendered in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 , by which the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that merely on ground of allegation of unauthorised absence, the absence cannot be termed to unauthorised, unless the enquiry officer come to his conclusive finding that the absence is wilful. “17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean willful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant. 18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.” 11. It is, thus, evident that for coming to the conclusion that the absence is unauthorised, the enquiry is required to be conducted. Further also for the reason that the unauthorised absence is a misconduct and when there is allegation of misconduct, it is incumbent upon the employer to initiate a departmental proceeding to come to the conclusion as to whether the conduct, which is said to be misconduct, committed on the part of the employee can be considered to be fit for punishment as prescribed under the disciplinary conduct rule. 12. 12. This Court, on pretext of the aforesaid legal position and coming back to the factual aspect of the case in hand, has found that it is admitted case of the State that no departmental proceeding has ever been initiated for holding the period from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 to be unauthorised absence. Even no show cause notice has been given to the respondent-writ petitioner, but the aforesaid period from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 has been held to be unauthorised absence and the writ petitioner has been deprived from the consequential benefits for the aforesaid period. Meaning thereby, the aforesaid period has been ousted from the entire length of the service of the writ petitioner, which according to the considered view of this Court amounts to major discrepancy in nature and in that respect, holding the regular departmental inquiry got important. 13. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the fact and by considering the specific pleading in this regard as has been brought to the notice vide counter affidavit dated 5.12.2019 as under para 20 to 22 wherein the writ petitioner has been transferred from Hazaribagh to Patna by an order issued by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna vide memo No. 4402 dated 13.12.1988, but the said transfer order was cancelled vide Memo No.188 dated 13.08.1992 by the Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. Thus, the respondent-writ petitioner had not joined even in the office of the District Superintendent of Education Patna. The respondent-writ petitioner therefore cannot be held to be remain absent from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 for the latches committed on the part of the authority. The writ petitioner thereafter made a representation on 13/8/1992 for consideration of her posting and accordingly, it is considered and the writ petitioner was posted in the Primary School, Navada under Katkamsandi Block, district Hazaribagh vide Memo No. 4020 dated 29.08.1992. Thereafter when, she was relieved and joined the transferred place of posting. The aforesaid fact clarified that there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner and as such in this pretext, holding of inquiry becomes necessary so as to come to the specific finding that there is wilful absence by the writ petitioner. Thereafter when, she was relieved and joined the transferred place of posting. The aforesaid fact clarified that there is no fault on the part of the writ petitioner and as such in this pretext, holding of inquiry becomes necessary so as to come to the specific finding that there is wilful absence by the writ petitioner. If there is latches or arbitrary exercise on the part of the State, the concerned employee cannot be held accountable and in that view of the matter, the period from 11.12.1987 to 03.09.1992 cannot be said to be unauthorised one. 14. The learned single judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid factual aspect and considering the fact that no inquiry has been conducted ousting the aforesaid period in the garb of the unauthorised absence has considered to be illegal and in consequence thereof the impugned order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh and order dated 31.03.2016 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, have been quashed. 15. This court in the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove in entirety of the view, the impugned order dated 27.01.2020 passed in WP(S) No.4275 of 2016 suffers from no error. 16. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Consequently interlocutory application has also been dismissed.