JUDGMENT : (N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) : Heard Mr. Hasibur Rahman, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P.W.A. Mazumder, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Bedanta Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 21. 06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner, herein, had instituted a review petition being Review Pet. No. 125/2024. 3. The above-noted Review Petition was allowed vide order, dated 14. 08.2024, recalling the order, dated 21.06.2024, passed by this Court in the instant writ petition being WP(c)3880/20217. Thereafter, the matter was again heard on 16.08.2024, and is fixed today, for delivery of orders. 4. The petitioner, herein, by way of instituting the present proceeding, has assailed the order towards imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service with further prayer for reinstatement in her service with all consequential benefits. 5. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 17.05.1991 and posted to Maligaon Girls’ High School. She was subsequently transferred and posted in the same capacity, vide order, dated 02.03.2004, to Pub Guwahati High School. While continuing to serve as an Assistant Teacher in the said school; the petitioner proceeded on earned leave w.e.f. 15.02.2008 to 29.02.2008. The said leave was so sanctioned by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner continued her leave w.e.f. 01.03.2008 to 31.05.2009, and accordingly, the said period of leave was so sanctioned by the authorities as Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL) without pay on private affairs. 6. It is seen that after conclusion of the period of leave so sanctioned to the petitioner till 31.05.2009; the petitioner did not resume her service and continued to remain absent. It is contended that the petitioner had from time to time submitted applications before the authorities of the school, in question, wherein she was so working, extending the leave so taken by her. The petitioner contends that she had resumed her service on 21.12.2012 and had attended her duties for a period of 10 days and thereafter, she had again proceeded on leave. 7. The petitioner contends that she had resumed her service on 21.12.2012 and had attended her duties for a period of 10 days and thereafter, she had again proceeded on leave. 7. The petitioner, thereafter, vide a communication, dated 30.05.2016, issued from Lusaka, Zambia, had contended before the departmental authorities that she was out of the country accompanying her husband and accordingly, her leave application for the period so involved; had already been sent to the Office of the Headmaster of Pub Guwahati High School. The petitioner also contends that she intends to rejoin her duty w.e.f. 01.07.2016. 8. Poised thus, the petitioner came across a notice published in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016, requiring the petitioner to submit her show-cause reply pertaining to the unauthorized absence w.e.f. 01.06.2009 and her non-response to the Communications, dated 23.05.2016 and 10.06.2016 issued by the departmental authorities, in this connection. 9. The petitioner further contends that on coming across the said notice published in “The Assam Tribune” on 24.06.2016, she submitted her show-cause reply to the Show Cause Notice so issued to her; on 27.06.2016. A Disciplinary Proceeding was so instituted against the petitioner and the same was taken forward and on conclusion of the same; the disciplinary authority i.e. Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Kamrup(M), vide order, dated 04.03.2017, noticing the long absence of the petitioner; proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon her with effect from the date of expiry of her Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL) sanctioned i.e. 01.06.2009. 10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court on 20.06.2017. 11. Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, by reiterating the above-noted facts, submitted that the dismissal of the writ petitioner from her service as effected vide order, dated 04.03.2017, was so done in clear violation of the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, in-as-much as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in the matter and accordingly, in violation of the procedure as mandated in the said Rules of 1964; the order, dated 04.03.2017, would not be sustainable and accordingly, the same requires to be interfered with by this Court with further direction for reinstatement of the petitioner in her service. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel, by highlighting the manner in which the proceedings were so instituted and concluded against the petitioner; had contended that neither, the Show Cause Notice involved, nor, the order, dated 04.03.2017, issued towards imposing upon her, the penalty of dismissal from service, was served upon her at the address so disclosed in her service records. 13. Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel, has further contended that the petitioner, herein, had only come to learn about the proceedings so instituted against her on coming across the notice so published in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016, and the petitioner was not in receipt of the Show Cause Notices purportedly stated to have been issued prior to the publication of the notice published in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016. 14. Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the respondent authorities not having served upon the petitioner, the Show Cause Notice involved; the proceedings so initiated against her leading to the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service, cannot be sustained and the same requires an interference from this Court. 15. In support of her contentions; Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Union of India & ors. v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar & ors., reported in (1998) 7 SCC 569 . 16. In the above premises; Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel, has contended that in the proceedings so held as well as the impugned order of penalty of dismissal from service, dated 04.03.2017, having been so passed in clear violation of the provisions of the Assam Services(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar(supra); the order, dated 04.03.2017, along with the Disciplinary Proceeding so instituted against the petitioner, would call for an interference by this Court and the petitioner, herein, is required to be directed to be reinstated in her service with all consequential benefits. 17. Per contra, Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, has contended that the petitioner after 01.06.2009, had not resumed her service and she was not granted any leave for the period after 01.06.2009, and accordingly, her absence from 01.06.2009, was clearly unauthorized. 17. Per contra, Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, has contended that the petitioner after 01.06.2009, had not resumed her service and she was not granted any leave for the period after 01.06.2009, and accordingly, her absence from 01.06.2009, was clearly unauthorized. It was submitted that the contention of the petitioner that she had resumed her service on 21.12.2012, cannot be accepted in-as-much as such joining of the petitioner in her service after her unauthorized absence was not so done with the permission of the competent authority. Accordingly, it is contended that the said purported joining of the petitioner in service on 21.12.2012, would be of no consequence. 18. Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, has further contended that the petitioner, by her conduct, had abandoned her service and accordingly, the conduct of the petitioner led to the issuance of the order, dated 04.03.2017, by which penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities had provided the petitioner with due opportunity to have her say in the matter and it was only after appreciating the conduct of the petitioner in the matter; the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, had proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner, vide order, dated 04.03.2017. 19. Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, by drawing the attention of this Court to the communication, dated 30. 05.2016, available at Annexure-6 to the petition, has contended that the said communication goes to reveal that the petitioner at the relevant point of time, was at Lusaka, Zambia. The learned standing counsel has also contended that the petitioner had not taken any station leave permission from the respondent authorities before leaving the place of her duty and also she had not taken any permission to leave the country. Accordingly, Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, has contended that the petitioner was also liable to so proceeded in the matter for having left the station without prior station leave permission. 20. Mr. Accordingly, Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, has contended that the petitioner was also liable to so proceeded in the matter for having left the station without prior station leave permission. 20. Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, by referring to the application so submitted by the petitioner, seeking permission to proceed on voluntary retirement from service, has contended that the petitioner having joined her services on 18.05.1991, and she having remained away from her duty w.e.f. 01.06.2009; her total qualifying period of service worked-out to 17 years only and accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to be permitted to proceed on voluntary retirement from service in-as-much as the requisite service for grant of such permission, was not completed by the petitioner on the date she had so submitted her application for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service. 21. Mr. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, in the above premises; has submitted that the order, dated 04.03.2017, would not call for any interference by this Court. 22. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 23. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the petitioner had remained away from her duty initially w.e.f. 15.02.2008 to 29.02.2008 and thereafter, w.e.f. 01.03.2008 to 31.05.2008. The period of absence of the petitioner w.e.f. 15.02.2008 to 29.02.2008, was so regularized by the authorities by granting to her, Earned Leave. The period of absence of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2008 to 31.05.2008 was also regularized by the respondent authorities by granting to her Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL) without pay on private affairs, vide an order, dated 20.05.2009. Thereafter, it is seen that the petitioner continued to remain absent from her duty and the period of her absence w.e.f. 01.06.2009, was without due permission from the respondent authorities. 24. The materials brought on record would go to show that the petitioner, herein, had been submitting her applications at regular intervals before the Headmaster of the school, in question, praying for extension of her leave. The said applications were duly forwarded to the departmental authorities. 25. 24. The materials brought on record would go to show that the petitioner, herein, had been submitting her applications at regular intervals before the Headmaster of the school, in question, praying for extension of her leave. The said applications were duly forwarded to the departmental authorities. 25. At this stage, it is to be noted that the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, on noticing the absence of the petitioner, had, vide communication, dated 19.03.2016; directed the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Kamrup(M), not to grant any Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL) without approval from the Office of the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam. 26. In terms of the directions passed by the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, vide communication, dated 19.03.2016, the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Kamrup(M), had proceeded vide order, dated 06.05.2016, to hold that the petitioner had left the station without prior permission from the competent authority and had remained unauthorizedly absent for long 7 years. The unauthorized absence of the petitioner for about 7 years was held to be not liable to be so regularized by grant of Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL) under the provisions of the Leave Rules and hence; the applications as submitted by the petitioner, came to be so rejected. 27. The records also reveal that the petitioner, herein, was issued with Show Cause Notices from time to time. However, the same was so issued in the address of the school, in question. Thereafter, no response having been received from the petitioner; a notice came to be so published in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016, wherein, the petitioner was directed to submit her show-cause reply to the Show Cause Notices so issued to her in respect of her unauthorized absence. 28. It is also to be noted that the Disciplinary Proceeding was so instituted against the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, vide issuance of a Show Cause Notice, dated 10.06.2016. 29. The petitioner, thereafter, duly submitted her reply in pursuance to the said Show Cause Notice after having come to learn about the same from the notice so published in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016. 30. 29. The petitioner, thereafter, duly submitted her reply in pursuance to the said Show Cause Notice after having come to learn about the same from the notice so published in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016. 30. The materials brought on record would further reveal that it is an admitted position that after the submission of her show cause reply, dated 27.12.2016, it is seen that the petitioner had not made any attempt to resume her services. Perusal of the contents of her show cause reply would reveal that the petitioner had admitted to the charge of remaining unauthorized absent from her service w.e.f. 01.06.2009 and no material was brought on record to justify her such absence. In view of the admission of the petitioner of the charge as levelled against her in the proceeding so initiated against her, the action on the part of the respondent authorities in proceeding to impose upon the petitioner, the penalty of dismissal from service, cannot be held to be erroneous. 31. The challenge presented by the petitioner to the penalty of dismissal as imposed upon her on the ground that the same was so issued in clear violation of the Rules holding the field, when viewed in the light of the conduct of the petitioner in the matter and her unilateral decision to remain away from her duties w.e.f. 01.06.2009, does not persuade this Court to consider such contention of the petitioner that the allegation of she having unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 01.06.2009, is not maintainable in-as-much as the petitioner had resumed her service on 21.12.2012. While it is true that the petitioner had joined her service on 21.10.2012, but, after working for around 10 days, had again left the school without any permission from the departmental authorities. Thereafter, it is contended that the petitioner was out of Guwahati for personal reasons. No materials have been produced by the petitioner as to the reasons that may have existed for remaining absent from her service, after having joined on 21.12.2012, and worked for about 10 days. The next step taken in the matter by the petitioner was on 27.06.2016 when she submitted her show cause reply in the matter. As such, the conduct of the petitioner as noticed hereinabove, does not call for any sympathetic consideration in her case. 32. The next step taken in the matter by the petitioner was on 27.06.2016 when she submitted her show cause reply in the matter. As such, the conduct of the petitioner as noticed hereinabove, does not call for any sympathetic consideration in her case. 32. A communication, dated 30.05.2016, issued by the petitioner to the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Kamrup(M), intimating that she was, as of then, out of the country accompanying her husband and intends to join her duty w.e.f. 01.07.2016, reveals that the said communication was so issued from Lusaka, Zambia. The petitioner had not brought on record any materials to demonstrate that she had taken requisite permission from the respondent authorities prior to leaving the country. Further, the communication, dated 30.05.2016, having demonstrated that the petitioner was out of the country at the relevant point of time and she having expressed her intention of resuming her service w.e.f. 01.07.2016; it can be safely presumed that the petitioner had remained out of the country till the end of June, 2016, and accordingly, it would also not have been possible to serve upon the petitioner, the Show Cause Notices so issued by the departmental authorities. 33. The materials as brought on record would go to reveal that the petitioner had deliberately remained away from her duty on account of her private affairs and the petitioner did not have an inclination to continue with her service. The petitioner, accordingly, can be safely held to have abandoned her service w.e.f. 01.06.2009, on her own volition. Accordingly, the dismissal from service so effected upon the petitioner vide order, dated 04.03.2017, in the considered view of this Court, would not call for an interference. 34. The petitioner being a teacher was required to teach the students of her school which was the greater public interest involved and the same when compared with the unauthorized absence of the petitioner for long period, for personal reasons, it is the public interest that has to be given precedence and not the private interest of the petitioner, herein, and accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for being reinstated in her service with effect from the date of her dismissal, would not mandate any consideration from this Court. The conduct of the petitioner in the matter would also not call for any sympathetic consideration in-as-much as w.e.f. 01.06.2009, it is an admitted position that the petitioner had not carried-out her assigned duties and the same was only on account of her personal interest. 35. At this stage, it is required to take note of the decision relied upon by Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (supra). 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-noted case, had, noticing the facts as involved therein; proceeded to draw the following conclusions: “4. So far as the service of show- cause notice is concerned, it also cannot be treated to have been served. Service of this notice was sought to be effected on the respondent by publication in a newspaper without making any earlier effort to serve him personally by tendering the show-cause notice either through the office peon or by registered post. There is nothing on record to indicate that the newspaper in which the show-cause notice was published was a popular newspaper which was expected to be read by the public in general or that it had a wide circulation in the area or locality where the respondent lived. The show-cause notice cannot, therefore, in these circumstances, be held to have been served on the respondent. In any case, since the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was bad for the reason that the charge- sheet was not served, all subsequent steps and stages, including the issuance of the show-cause notice would be bad.” 37. The said conclusion as drawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of the matter in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar(supra), would not advance the case of the petitioner, herein, in-as-much as, in addition to the respondent authorities issuung the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner through the school, in question; it is seen that the petitioner at the relevant point of time, was out of the country and accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that the notice should have been so sent to the address as recorded in her service records, would also be of no relevance. 38. 38. The petitioner while proceeding to leave the country along with her husband, at the relevant point of time; had not issued any communication to the respondent authorities intimating the authorities about her address during the period of her such absence from the station. Further, the publication of the notice in “The Assam Tribune” in its issue, dated 24.06.2016, having been so noticed by the petitioner and a response thereto, submitted by her; it has to be held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar(supra), would not advance the case of the petitioner, herein. 39. Mr. Rahman, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has further relied upon the said decision to emphasize on the point i.e. the order of penalty of dismissal from service, dated 04.03.2017, having not been served upon the petitioner; the same is non-est in the eye of law and the same could not have been so implemented. 40. The pleadings brought on record by the petitioner would go to reveal the fact that the petitioner had collected a copy of the said order of dismissal from the school authorities and accordingly, the petitioner was in the knowledge of the order, dated 04.03.2017, and she had also instituted the present proceeding assailing such order of dismissal from service. 41. A perusal of the order, dated 04.03.2017, would further go to reveal that a copy of the same was so sent to the petitioner at the address so recorded in her service records. The petitioner, in her response, in this connection; made the following contentions: “Further, it is submitted that though the dismissal order has been reflected can be sent to the address reflected in the service book, then the show cause notices also ought to have been sent to the same address and not to the school. This speaks volume about the mala fide on the part of the respondents.” 42. The said contention of the petitioner goes to reveal that she has admitted to the fact that the order, dated 04.03.2017, was also sent to her at the address so recorded in her service records. This speaks volume about the mala fide on the part of the respondents.” 42. The said contention of the petitioner goes to reveal that she has admitted to the fact that the order, dated 04.03.2017, was also sent to her at the address so recorded in her service records. In view of the above position and the order of dismissal having been received by the petitioner, herein; the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinanath Shantaram Karekar(supra) would also not advance the case of the petitioner on the said issue. 43. Having drawn the above conclusions; this Court would now consider the contention of the petitioner that the application for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service, was required to be considered by the respondent authorities. 44. It is seen that the petitioner, herein, had submitted an application for proceeding on voluntary retirement from service on 26.07.2016. The petitioner, as noticed hereinabove, had joined her service on 18.05.1991. The petitioner, thereafter, had remained unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 01.06.2009. Accordingly, excluding the period of her such unauthorized absence and also excluding the period of absence of the petitioner which was regularized by the Department by grant of Extra-ordinary Leave(EOL); it is found that the petitioner had a qualifying period of service of around 17 years only and accordingly, the petitioner not having fulfilled the requisite length of service for being considered for grant of permission to proceed on voluntary retirement from service; the prayer of the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities to accept her application for voluntary retirement from service, would not merit any consideration in-as-much as the same, admittedly, was not maintainable on the date, the same was so preferred by the petitioner, herein. 45. In view of the conclusions reached by the Court hereinabove and also considering the conduct of the petitioner; this Court holds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.