JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) upon the Respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner after availing of Casual leave of 06 days or more due to un-avoidable circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working under the Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand since 2005. The petitioner was granted leave for the period from 19.11.2016 to 25.11.2016 for treatment of his mother. A statement to this effect has been made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner has stated that he was suffering from mental illness and was under treatment in various hospitals during the period from 21.11.2016 to 10.02.2023 and after obtaining certificate of medical fitness, he made a representation on 17.02.2023 before the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi - Respondent No. 3 for accepting his joining, but no action was taken and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case and the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ petition has not been denied. 5. The learner counsel for the petitioner further submits that the records indicate that so far no order of dismissal has been passed against the petitioner. 6. He has submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, a letter dated 31.03.2023 was issued to the petitioner calling for an explanation for unauthorized absence to which the petitioner has duly responded, but to the best of his knowledge, neither any disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, nor the petitioner has been permitted to join. The learner counsel has submitted that even if any disciplinary proceeding has to be drawn against the petitioner, the petitioner can certainly be put under suspension and appropriate action can be taken, but the joining of the petitioner cannot be denied by the respondents. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the counter-affidavit, the show-cause was called for but he is not aware about the present status of the case. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the counter-affidavit, the show-cause was called for but he is not aware about the present status of the case. The learned counsel submits that it has not been brought on record by the petitioner as to whether the petitioner has responded to the show-cause dated 31.03.2023. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that during the period of absence of the petitioner, several letters were issued to the petitioner asking him to join, but the petitioner did not join and did not even respond to the letters issued to the petitioner and further the petitioner did not intimate the respondents regarding his illness. 9. The writ petition has been filed on 20.03.2023 and the show cause has been issued to the petitioner on 31.03.2023 and it is not clear as to whether the petitioner has responded to the said show cause or not. However, from the counter-affidavit, it is not in dispute that so far the petitioner has not been dismissed from service. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that there has been long absence of the petitioner at least from 18.11.2016 to 16.02.2023 and the petitioner claims that he was under treatment of various doctors. It further appears that the petitioner gave his joining on 17.02.2023, but the same was not accepted by the respondents, and no order was passed on the same. 11. The counter-affidavit reveals that a show-cause was issued to the petitioner on 31.03.2023 for his long absence, but it is not clear from the records as to whether the petitioner has responded to the same or not. However, from the counter-affidavit, it appears that the petitioner has not yet been dismissed from service, and show cause was issued to the petitioner to furnish his explanation. 12. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the joining of the petitioner could not have been refused inasmuch as it was certainly for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence by instituting a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and for that purpose also, the joining of the petitioner would be required. 12. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the joining of the petitioner could not have been refused inasmuch as it was certainly for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence by instituting a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and for that purpose also, the joining of the petitioner would be required. Certainly, the petitioner can be immediately put under suspension if the authority so considers proper. 13. In such circumstances, the joining of the petitioner is directed to be accepted if there is no other legal impediment and such joining as well as any relief to the petitioner would certainly be subject to the disciplinary proceeding, if instituted against the petitioner. 14. The needful be done with regard to joining of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.