JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. D. G. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 5. 2. The petitioners herein are by way of present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have challenged the order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal, dismissing the Application No.174 of 1998 filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, as referred above, the petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs :- “[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. [B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order Or direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 3/8/2005 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Application No.174/1998, at Annexure “A" to the petition, and the impugned order dated 19/4/1996 passed by the respondent No.1, at Annexure “B" to the petition. [C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages and all other consequential benefits. [D] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by directing the respondents not to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher on which the petitioner was serving. [E] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 3/8/2005 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Application No.l74/1998, at Annexure-A" to the petition, and the impugned order dated 19/4/1996 passed by the respondent No.l, at Annexure "B" to the petition; [ii] direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages and all other consequential benefits; [iii] direct the respondents not to fill up the post of Assistant Teacher on which the petitioner was serving. [F] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to restrain the respondents authority from implementing the impugned order dated January 15, 2003 passed by the respondent No.2 herein, and the impugned order dated March 4, 2005 at Annexure “C” to the petition, and, the impugned Notice for recovery dated December 2, 2005, at Annexure "D" to the petition. [F] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favour of the petitioners, as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus :- 3.1 The petitioner herein was initially appointed in the respondent No.1 School as an Assistant Teacher on 24.6.1986 initially for a period of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner was made permanent and she served with great care, sincerity and dedication. 3.2 The petitioner has initially remained absent for some period on medical grounds. The respondent University issued notices to the petitioner for remaining present and addressed several communications for the period for which the petitioner had remained absent. 3.3 The petitioner received notice on 23.2.1995 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why further steps should not be initiated against the petitioner for remaining unauthorisedly absent. 3.3 The administrative officer was appointed who asked for certain details from the university for the period of unauthorized period of absent of the petitioner. By communication dated 11-13.2.95, the respondent University sent details to the administrative officer of the university pointing out the relevant dates of absence of the petitioner. 3.4 The petitioner remained absent from 2.12.1991 to 18.12.1991 for a period of 17 days. On 2.12.1991, a report for leave on medical ground was submitted. On 19.11.1991, the petitioner submitted doctor's certificate stating that the petitioner was advised to take one month's bed rest. From 19.12.1991 to 8.5.1992, for a period of 141 days, the petitioner had taken leave without pay and a report was submitted on 9.5.1992 when the petitioner remained present for duty. 3.5 From 10.5.1992 to 22.6.1992, the school was closed for Summer vacation and the petitioner sent report which was received by the school on 22.7.1992 wherein the petitioner stated that, the petitioner had to undergo abortion according to the advice of the doctor. 3.5 From 10.5.1992 to 22.6.1992, the school was closed for Summer vacation and the petitioner sent report which was received by the school on 22.7.1992 wherein the petitioner stated that, the petitioner had to undergo abortion according to the advice of the doctor. The petitioner was advised one and half months rest and therefore, from 26.6.1992 to 6.8.1993, the petitioner applied for maternity leave. Thereafter, vide letter dated 16.8.1992, the petitioner submitted a doctor's certificate for leave from 7.8.1992 to 5.12.1992, leave without pay and the said certificate is duly produced on 7.12.1992 when the petitioner reported for duty. 3.6 By communication dated 21.12.1992, the petitioner applied for leave from 12.12.1992 to 8.5.1993 for 147 days, leave without pay. Again on 8.5.1993, the petitioner applied for leave on maternity grounds as the unfortunate incident happened that the petitioner delivered a baby girl, who expired on the same day i.e. on 7.4.1993 and therefore, on 22.5.1993. when the petitioner remained present, the petitioner applied for leave from 1.12.1992 to 6.4.1993 and from 7.4.1993 to 21.5.1993 being maternity leave. 3.7 By communication dated 13.8.1993, the petitioner applied for leave from 28.6.1993 to 6.11.1993 as leave without pay. 3.8 The respondent University sought for explanation for the aforesaid leave and it is alleged that the petitioner did not give reply and thereafter, the Administrative Officer was appointed who submitted detailed reply regarding the leave and according to the Regulations of 1974, particularly Regulation No.27, punishment was sought to be imposed on the petitioner. 3.9 It came to the knowledge of the petitioner that first procedure which is required to be followed of appointing a representative to be selected from the panel of the board was followed, and it was decided that inquiry committee to be formed for which the petitioner was issued communication and one Shankerbhai Patel was appointed from the panel on behalf of the Board to be a part of the inquiry committee. 3.10 On 22/8/1995, a communication was sent to the petitioner alleging three allegations, mainly that the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period and therefore, the education of the students has been hampered and though told to remain present, the petitioner did not remain present, and it would be insubordination. 3.10 On 22/8/1995, a communication was sent to the petitioner alleging three allegations, mainly that the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent for a long period and therefore, the education of the students has been hampered and though told to remain present, the petitioner did not remain present, and it would be insubordination. 3.11 The petitioner did not remain present during this period and on 16/9/1995, in the interest of justice, the committee adjourned the proceedings and further notices were sent to the petitioner for remaining present. 3.12 On 20/10/1995, Rojkam was prepared by the inquiry committee wherein it was alleged that, the petitioner remained absent, and there was no defence on the part of the petitioner, hence the petitioner was ordered to be relieved from service. 3.13 On 3-4/11/1995, an order came to be passed by the respondent No.2 relieving the petitioner from service. 3.14 On 13/12/1995, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. 3.15 On 6/2/1996, the respondent No.1 sent a communication to the respondent No.3 giving opinion that the petitioner can be dismissed from service by communication dated 23/3/1996, the respondent No.3 approved for dismissal to the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the order dated 19/4/1996 is passed which was challenged before the Tribunal by preferring Application No. 174/98. 3.16 A certificate dated 27/11/1990 issued by the respondent No.2, Principal, stating that the petitioner has served from 6/7/1996 with great dedication and she bears the high moral character and is also taking part in cultural activities. 3.17 The Tribunal consolidated two cases, one being that of the petitioner i.e. Application No. 174/98 and other application was filed by the teacher who was appointed being Application No.417 of 1996. 3.18 The Tribunal passed an order of removal instead of dismissal by order dated 3.8.2005 duly produced at Annexure-A to the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Application No.174 of 1998 the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by seeking reliefs as referred herein above. 4. Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be interfered with mainly on the ground that the petitioner herein was going through medical exigency. 4.1 Ms. 4. Ms. Prachi Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be interfered with mainly on the ground that the petitioner herein was going through medical exigency. 4.1 Ms. Upadhyay, the learned advocate placed reliance on the medical certificates placed on record duly produced at page-101 dated 16.4.1993, page-102 dated 13.1.1994 and page-104 dated 20.9.1995. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Ms. Upadhyay, the learned advocate submitted that on 16.4.1993, at the time when the inquiry was held the petitioner herein had miscarriage and she was advised complete bed-rest for two months from the date of miscarriage. In view thereof, the petitioner could not attend the inquiry for the aforesaid reason. 4.2 Ms. Upadhyay, the learned advocate submitted that in the interregnum period on 13.1.1994, the petitioner had undergone abortion and advised to rest. On 20.9.1995, the petitioner underwent miscarriage and in view thereof was advised three months rest. Ms. Upadhyay, the learned advocate submitted that the aforesaid reasons were beyond the control of the petitioner and in view thereof the petitioner could not remain present in the inquiry. 4.3 In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that a lenient approach ought to have been taken by the respondent authority. 4.4 Placing reliance on the ratio as laid down in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 paragraph-16 and submitted that the absence which is unauthorised, but the circumstances are required to be seen, and if the circumstances are compelling circumstances, in view thereof the absence cannot be held to be willful absence. The absence without permission may be unauthorised, but not willful absence. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per constra, Mr. D.G. Chauhan, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 5 submitted that no error can be said to have been committed by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order of removal from service. 5.1 It is submitted that the petitioner has been callous in her approach and has remained absent from her duty for three years. It is the petitioner’s own admission that the petitioner did not join her duty and that she was not required to join the duty. 5.1 It is submitted that the petitioner has been callous in her approach and has remained absent from her duty for three years. It is the petitioner’s own admission that the petitioner did not join her duty and that she was not required to join the duty. 5.2 Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate submitted that the respondent Management had written seven letters calling upon the petitioner from 13.7.1993 to 27.101994 calling upon the petitioner to report and join for duties. Inspite of aforesaid communications the petitioner thought it fit not to join the duties. 5.3 It was submitted that lastly on 23.2.1995, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to join her duties, failing which appropriate action would be required to be taken against the petitioner. Inspite of the aforesaid notice having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner did not reply to the same and in view thereof the School- Management constituted an inquiry committee comprising of two members, (1) Shri Shankerbhai Patel – representative from the panel of the Board and (2) Shri Upadhyay, Head Master of the respondent School. The applicant chose not to appear either in person or appoint a representative for the inquiry committee. 5.4 It was submitted that in view thereof, charge-sheet was issued on 22.8.1995, wherein three charges came to be framed qua the petitioner herein which are thus; (1) By remaining absent from 7.11.93 without submitting any leave report or intimation to the school you have committed a serious act of dereliction of duties (2) Unauthorised absence has had an adverse effect on the education of the students (3) Despite frequent instructions by the management to join duties, by not doing so, you have committed a misconduct of insubordination. 5.5 Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate placed reliance on the table produced by the respondent Management in paragraph-4 at page-22 from which it is undisputed that the petitioner remained absent from 7.11.1993 till the date of dismissal i.e. 19.4.1996 continuously unauthorisedly. It was submitted that the petitioner chose not to remain present on both the dates when the petitioner was called i.e. on 16.9.1995 and 20.10.1995. It was submitted that the petitioner chose not to remain present on both the dates when the petitioner was called i.e. on 16.9.1995 and 20.10.1995. In view thereof the respondent Management sent a proposal for dismissal to the respondent D.E.O. wherein the D.E.O. also held a hearing and the petitioner chose not to remain present and in view thereof the D.E.O. passed an order of dismissal dated 23.3.1996 with effect from 7.11.1993. 5.6 Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate relied on the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal and pacling reliance on the same submitted that no interference is called in the impugned order which is passed taking into consideration the evidence on record and that this Court may not sit in appeal over the order passed by the Tribunal having passed after taking into consideration the factual aspect. Reliance is placed by Mr. Chauhan, the learned advocate on (2013) 10 SCC 253 and (2003) 3 SCC 524 . Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the present petition be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is apposite to refer to the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 read thus :- “4. In order to place the fact s in proper perspective even though appln.no.147/98 is filed in latter point of time, the said matter is dealt with first and thereafter appln.no.4 17/96 will be dealt with. Appln.no.147/98 filed on 26.3.98: The facts of the case that emerge from the pleadings, reply and evidence are briefly summarized as under: That the applicant of this application is having the qualifications of B.A.B.ED. in the subjects of Hindi and Social Studies. After serving as asstt.teacher in some other school for about 7 yrs. she has joined the respdt.school w.e.f. 3..7.86 for teaching the subjects of Hindi and Social Studies. The grievance of the school management against this lady teacher is that she was in habit of remaining absent frequently. Sometimes she would request for leave and many times without seeking leave unauthorisedly she remained absent thereby causing serious harm to the education of students. The grievance of the school management against this lady teacher is that she was in habit of remaining absent frequently. Sometimes she would request for leave and many times without seeking leave unauthorisedly she remained absent thereby causing serious harm to the education of students. The period of her absence with leave and without leave from the document produced by the management at Ex.B is stated under: Period Days Particulars 5.8.91 to 2.11.91 90 Maternity leave 2.12.91 to 18.12.91 17 Medical leave 19.12.91 to 8.5.92 141 Extraordinary leave 23.6.92 to 6.8.92 45 Maternity leave 7.8.92 to 5.12.92 145 Extraordinary leave 12.12.92 to 6.4.93 116 Extraordinary leave 7.4.93 to 21.5.93 45 Maternity leave 28.6.93 to 6.11.93 132 Extraordinary leave From 7.1 1.93 till the date of dismissal dt.19.4.96 continuously absent unauthorisely. The school management has written about 7 letters i.e. on 13.7.93, 4.12.93, 22.12.93, 4.2.94, 8.3.94, 9.5.94 and 27. 10.94 calling upon her to submit the report and join the duties. The applicant has unfortunately not paid any heed and has also not joined the duties. Lastly, on 23.2.95 a show cause notice by R.P.A.D. seems to have been issued to the applicant indicating to her that if within 15 days she does not submit her reply and join the duties then the action against her in accordance with rules will be taken by presuming that she has nothing to say in the matter. The applicant has not responded to this notice also The school management has then constituted an inquiry committee comprising of 2 members (1) Shri Shankarbhai Patel -representative from the panel of the Board (2) Shri B.S. Upadhyay, H.M. of the respdt.school as the applicant has not chosen to appoint her representative on the inquiry committee. A chargesheet dt.22.8.95 was issued comprising of 3 charges. The charges are in Gujarati language. The gist of the charges when translated in English is as under: (1) By remaining absent from 7.11.93 without submitting any leave report or intimation to the school you have committed a serious act of dereliction of duties (2) Unauthorised absence has had an adverse effect on the education of the students (3) Despite frequent instructions by the management to join duties, by not doing so, you have committed a misconduct of insubordination. It appears that thereafter the above-referred two members of the inquiry committee, first time met on l6.9.95 and due to absence of applicant and her representative, with a view to give one opportunity to her, the proceedings appears to have been adjourned to 20.10.95 20.10.95 with appropriate instructions to her. On 20.10.95 the proceedings reveal that none was present for applicant and the two members of the inquiry committee have taken the charges as proved as the applicant has not denied the charges. The school management has thereafter on 13.12.95 issued the second show cause notice to the applicant enclosing therewith the inquiry report, surprisingly, even at this stage also the applicant has chosen to remain silent. Ultimately the management has on 6.2.96 sent a proposal to the D.E.0. seeking approval for their proposed action of termination. The D.E.O. has by his order dt. 23.3.96 accorded approval for dismissing the applicant from services. This order appears to have been sent to the applicant by R.P.A.D. Surprisingly, she has remained silent for a period of 2 yrs. and then on 26.3.98 instituted this application before this forum assailing the said order of dismissal on various grounds: 8. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the entire record, it appears to that this is not the case where on genuine grounds the teacher has remained absent by submitting the medical reports etc. For the reasons which will be narrated hereinafter, it appears to me that this is the case of unauthorized absence on the part of the applicant causing undue hardship to the school as well as the career of the students. I am conscious that there are occasions when a person is required to remain on leave for long time due to health grounds and in such cases ordinarily, the stand of the employer of putting an end to the services only on that g round is not sustainable. I have addressed this problem with matured mind and on perusal of record, it appears to me that this applicant remained absent from duties unauthorisedly and she has not been able to give any cogent reasons or produce any record for her absence either before the management enquiry committee or before this forum. 9. No employee is permitted to remain absent from duties without leave. 9. No employee is permitted to remain absent from duties without leave. A statutory Reg.29 of G.S.E. Regulations which is applicable to the applicant provides as under" 29.(1)"No employee of a registered school shall ordinarily remain Absent from his duties without first having obtained the Permission of the head of the school. (2) In case of an emergency, when he is unable to obtain Necessary permission, he shall intimate to the head the reasons of his absence at the earliest opportunity: Provided that in no case shall such absence be continued Beyond three days" The first sentence of statutory Reg.30(1) reads "leave shall not be claimed as a matter of right. 10. From the reading of above-referred provisions, it becomes clear that no employee is permitted to remain absent without first having obtained the permission of the head of the school. In the instant case, the record shows that on several occasions this applicant remained absent without even intimating the reasons to the management. There are occasions where the management has reminded this applicant and asked to report for the duties and thereafter the applicant used to submit her leave report and medical certificate etc. Not only this, on several occasions she remained absent without submitting any report whatsoever. It is in the evidence that she has not responded to the letters written by the management even though she has received the same, If the applicant really had the genuine reasons as one could have it, then she would have submitted the leave report alongwith the medical certificates but the conduct of the applicant clearly shows that she had absolutely no reasonable ground to remain absent. From the letters written by the management to the applicant and which were received by her, it becomes clear that every time the management wanted her to join duties and submit her report and even though she has not honoured the said requests or instructions. A perusal of record makes it abundantly clear that the management had before issuing the show cause notice atleast by 7 letters called upon her to indicate the reasons about her absence and asked to report for duties The applicant has chosen to remain silent. A perusal of record makes it abundantly clear that the management had before issuing the show cause notice atleast by 7 letters called upon her to indicate the reasons about her absence and asked to report for duties The applicant has chosen to remain silent. Apart from reporting for duties she has not even responded to the letters given by the management In the show cause notice before starting the inquiry, the school management has asked her to submit her explanation within 15 days. Even she does not respond to them. In the very same notice it is clearly mentioned that if she does not submit her explanation then they would proceed further with an assumption that she has nothing to say in the matter. The management has accordingly constituted a selection committee and the said committee has met twice and the applicant has not participated in the same. The committee has ultimately taken the charges as proved and after following the procedure dismissed the applicant. This being the case of unauthorized absence what was required of the applicant was to submit an explanation with proof that she did not remain absent without intimation to the management but she had submitted the report before proceeding on leave. The applicant has neither done that before the management or the inquiry committee nor any satisfactory explanation is placed before me except vaguely saying that due to ill-health and husband being away in Surat and on the grounds of delivery etc. she has remained absent. It is surprising that the applicant has not only remained silent to the correspondence of the school but she has also not taken the notice received from the D.E.0. seriously on the proposal of the management. The dismissal order is dt.19.4.96 which is served upon her by R.P.A.D. and she challenges this order 2 yrs. thereafter by filing application here. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts, it becomes clear that the applicant was unauthorizedly remaining absent and she had absolutely no interest to serve the school at the relevant time and she also appears to be totally indolent and careless. 11. It is true that Mr. B.S. Upadhyay who had issued letters to the applicant asking her to remain present was on the inquiry committee. 11. It is true that Mr. B.S. Upadhyay who had issued letters to the applicant asking her to remain present was on the inquiry committee. In my view, having regard to the facts of the case, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the case of the applicant due to Mr. B.S. Upadhyay being on the inquiry committee. Had it been the case of some dispute between Mr. Upadhyay and the applicant then perhaps one could have said that Mr. Upadhyay should have rescued from the inquiry committee. In the instant case, Mr. Upadhyay had written letters to the applicant in his official capacity and that is only with regard to her absence. There is no charge or allegation which has originated from the action of Mr. Upadhyay. It is true that there were only 2 meetings of the inquiry committee and in the second meeting the committee had taken a decision about the charges having been proved against the applicant. I have carefully perused the inquiry proceedings. It is true that in the middle of the proceedings dt.16.10.95 a mention is made about the adjournment of the proceedings but thereafter the proceedings continued and the charges were taken as proved. In my view, this it may be a small irregularity but it has in no way shown to have adversely affected the interests of the applicant. Having regard to the nature of allegations as stated earlier, it was for the applicant to have shown to the committee that she did not remain absent without submitting the reports or without obtaining the permission from the management. In the matter of this kind naturally, therefore, there cannot be any witnesses or any other evidence. I am therefore, not persuaded by the submissions made by Ld. Counsel or applicant in this regard. It may bear repetition that the applicant has remained absent without submitting any intimation or report to the management. She has not chosen to remain present despite frequent instructions by the management. She has not participated in the inquiry proceedings, she has not participated in the hearing held by the D.E.O. on the proposal of the management. Even she has approached this Tribunal 2 yrs. after the order of dismissal was passed. She has not chosen to remain present despite frequent instructions by the management. She has not participated in the inquiry proceedings, she has not participated in the hearing held by the D.E.O. on the proposal of the management. Even she has approached this Tribunal 2 yrs. after the order of dismissal was passed. The applicant has thus, projected an image of a thoroughly careless and disobedient teacher In my view, such a teacher cannot be retained in a school. One can appreciate the difficulty of management if a teacher remains absent for such a long period without proper intimation to the management, leaving the management in lurch and preventing them from making alternative arrangements. I agree with the L.A for management that this conduct of the applicant has caused a great loss to the education of the children. I therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is true that the management has sent a proposal to the D.E,0. seeking permission for removal of applicant from services. It is strange that by order dt. 23.3.96 the D.E.O. has accorded permission for her dismissal. In my view, the D.E.0. was not justified in passing such an order. The management has on the basis of the D.E.O.'s order proceeded to pass the dismissal order even though the penalty proposed was that of removal instead of dismissal. The impugned order shall therefore, be considered as order of removal instead of dismissal.” Analysis :- 7. Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 19.4.1996 duly confirmed by the Tribunal dated 3.8.2005 in Application No.174 of 1998 the following emerge :- (a) It appears that the petitioner herein was absent unauthorisedly from 7.1.1993 to 19.4.1996 continuously for a period of three years, absence with leave from 5.8.1991 to 6.11.1993, as referred in para-6 (page-17) above. (b) The respondent Management addressed seven communications (page-17) dated 13.7.93, 4.12.93, 22.12.93, 4.2.94, 8.3.94, 9.5.94 and 27.10.94 calling upon her to submit the report and join the duties. (b) The respondent Management addressed seven communications (page-17) dated 13.7.93, 4.12.93, 22.12.93, 4.2.94, 8.3.94, 9.5.94 and 27.10.94 calling upon her to submit the report and join the duties. (c) Upon issuance of show cause notice on 23.2.1995 indicating to her that if within 15 days if the petitioner does not submit her reply and join the duties, then the action would be taken against the petitioner in accordance with Rules presuming that the petitioner has nothing to say in the said subject matter. The petitioner chose not to reply to the said show cause notice. (d) The respondent - School Management constituted an inquiry committee comprising of two members (1) Shri Shankerbhai Patel – representative from the panel of the Board and (2) Shri Upadhyay, Head Master of the respondent School as the petitioner herein chose neither to appoint her representative nor remained present in person in the said inquiry. (e) The petitioner was issued charge-sheet on 22.8.1995 comprising of three charges. The gist of the said charges, as referred in page-18 above. (f) Thereafter the Inquiry Committee met for the first time on 16.9.1995 and due to the absence of the petitioner herein and/or her representative with a view to give one more opportunity to the petitioner it appears that the proceedings were adjourned to 20.10.1995 for the petitioner to take appropriate instructions. On 20.101995 also none was present on behalf of the petitioner and the two members of the Inquiry Committee recorded the charges as proved as the petitioner herein chose not to deny the charges. (g) On 13.12.1995, the School Management issued second show cause notice to the petitioner enclosing the inquiry report. The petitioner remained absent at that stage also. (h) Ultimately the respondent School Management on 6.2.1996 sent proposal to the respondent D.E.O. seeking approval of the proposed action of the termination which came to be accorded by order dated 23.3.1996 for dismissing the petitioner from service. The aforesaid matter is subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal after a period of two years. (i) Upon perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioner in the present petition are considered by this Court as per the certificates produced on record :- (1) dated 5.12.1992 (page-98) three months bed rest advised. (2) dated 15.6.1992 (page-99) three months bed rest advised due to abortion on 3.6.1992. (i) Upon perusal of the documents placed on record by the petitioner in the present petition are considered by this Court as per the certificates produced on record :- (1) dated 5.12.1992 (page-98) three months bed rest advised. (2) dated 15.6.1992 (page-99) three months bed rest advised due to abortion on 3.6.1992. (3) dated 10.8.1992 (page-100) one month bed rest advised as the petitioner suffered from pelvic inflammatory disease. (4) dated 16.4.1993 (page-101) one month bed rest advised due to abortion. (5) dated 13.1.1993 (page-102) advised rest till delivery. (6) dated 8.7.1994 (page-103) four months bed rest advised. (7) dated 20.9.1995 (page-104) three months rest advised. The aforesaid has to be read with Regulations-29 and 30(1) of the G.S.E. Regulations which is applicable to the petitioner which read thus :- 29.(1)"No employee of a registered school shall ordinarily remain Absent from his duties without first having obtained the Permission of the head of the school. (2) In case of an emergency, when he is unable to obtain Necessary permission, he shall intimate to the head the reasons of his absence at the earliest opportunity: Provided that in no case shall such absence be continued Beyond three days" The first sentence of statutory Reg.30(1) reads "leave shall not be claimed as a matter of right. In light of the aforesaid, the Tribunal held that on number of occasions the petitioner remained absent without intimating any reason to the Management. Regulation-30 provides that, "leave shall not be claimed as a matter of right.” Upon considering the aforesaid provision, the Tribunal held that, no employee is permitted to remain absent without first having obtained permission from the head of the school. In the facts of the present case, upon perusal of the record, on several occasions the applicant remained absent even without intimating the reasons to the Management. There were occasions when the Management reminded the applicant and asked to report for the duties and thereafter the applicant submitted her leave report and medical certificate etc. On several occasions the applicant remained absent without submitting any report whatsoever. The aforesaid certificates relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner are produced for the first time before this Court. On several occasions the applicant remained absent without submitting any report whatsoever. The aforesaid certificates relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner are produced for the first time before this Court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid certificates and without doubting the genuineness of the certificates, though not proved before the competent authority, upon perusal of the same, the said certificates certified that the petitioner was required to remain on leave for about 12 months. There is a finding of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner remained absent for three years. Considering the aforesaid also there is unauthorised absence on the part of the petitioner for remaining two years. In view thereof, the aforesaid certificates also do not come to the avail of the petitioner for the Court to take a view other than that taken by the learned Tribunal. Further the decision taken by the Tribunal is a plausible decision and is arrived at after taking into consideration the documents produced on record. 8. In the aforesaid set of facts, in the opinion of this Court, present case are governed by the following position of law. (A) In the case of Sadhana Lodh Versus National Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524 , paragraph-7 reads thus :- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (B) In the case of Vijay S. Sathaye Versus Indian Airlines Limited, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 253 , paragraphs 12 to 16 read thus :- “12. In Buckingham and Carnatic Co. In Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 1272 while dealing with a similar case, this Court observed : "Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention, and normally, such an intention cannot be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence in that behalf." A similar view has been reiterated in G.T. Lad & Ors. v. Chemicals and Fibres India Ltd., AIR 1979 SC 582 . 13. In Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr., AIR 2000 SC 2198 ; and Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. v. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 , this Court ruled that if a person is absent beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can be granted, he should be treated to have resigned and ceases to be in service. In such a case, there is no need to hold an enquiry or to give any notice as it would amount to useless formalities. A similar view has been reiterated in V.C. Banaras Hindu University & Ors. v. Shrikant, AIR 2006 SC 2304 ; Chief Engineer (Construction) v. Keshava Rao (dead) by Lrs., (2005) 11 SCC 229 ; and Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda v. Anita Nandrajog, (2009) 9 SCC 462 . 14. Thus, in view thereof, the petitions are devoid of merits. An offer had been made by the respondents to the petitioner vide letter dated 9.4.2008 for accepting the payment of Rs.1,42,042.45 and Rs.6,24,104.58. However, he did not accept the said amount. The same amount has been paid today to Shri Manish Pitale, learned counsel for the petitioner through (i) D.D. No.795783 dated 5.9.2013 drawn on State Bank of India amounting to Rs.6,24,104.58 (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Four and Fifty Eight paise only), and (ii) D.D. No. 753199 dated 5.9.2013 drawn on State Bank of India amounting to Rs.1,42,042.45 (Rupees One Lakh Forty Two Thousand Forty Two and Forty Five paise only) and the same have been accepted herein. 15. In view thereof, we do not see any justification to other dues. By this payment claim stands fully and finally settled. 16. With these observations, the special leave petitions are disposed of.” 9. Position of law relied upon in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 paragraph-16 by Ms. In view thereof, we do not see any justification to other dues. By this payment claim stands fully and finally settled. 16. With these observations, the special leave petitions are disposed of.” 9. Position of law relied upon in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 paragraph-16 by Ms. Upadhyay, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would be of no avail to the petitioner in view of the fact that even taking into consideration the contentions of the petitioner that because of the medical exigency the petitioner could not remain present, in the opinion of this Court, it was required on the part of the petitioner either to inform the committee or to appear on the second day or through a legal representative, when the proceeding of the inquiry were adjourned. Having chosen not to appear or having not put up her contention before the respondent authority, it cannot be said that there is any error on the part of the respondent authority having come to the aforesaid conclusion. It is also noticed by this Court that, the said order of dismissal passed by the D.E.O. came to be challenged before the Tribunal after a period of two years which also has to be considered while the petitioner has been callous in the approach having remained absent for more than three years unauthorisedly. 10. In light of the aforesaid ratio, as referred above, this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to sit in appeal over the decision taken by the disciplinary authority as well as the Tribunal to reppreciate the evidence considered by the disciplinary authority by the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 dated 19.4.1996 duly confirmed by the Tribunal dated 3.8.2005 in Application No.174 of 1998 and having arrived at the aforesaid decision of order of removal instead of dismissal taking into consideration the facts and evidence on record. Further the petitioner has remained absent beyond the prescribed period for which leave was granted. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition fails and the same stands dismissed.