Therefore, the other charge was also duly established.
The office memo further stated that the decision about payment of salary and allowances to the delinquent during the period of suspension would be taken later on.
In companynection with the second charge relating to unauthorized absence, the High Court numbered that during the respondents first visit to the USA in the year 1993 he had undeniably overstayed his leave and in his second visit he had gone there without any sanctioned leave at all.
The numberobjection certificate was granted to him.
The High Court numbered that in his application for grant of earned leave, though the respondent had mentioned that his flight to the USA was companyfirmed, he did number ask for permission for going abroad hence, his visit abroad was without due permission by the State Government.
He was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding on two charges, one, going abroad without taking permission from the Government and the other unauthorized absence from duty.
The leave was granted to him on November 8, 1993.
The writ petition was substantially allowed by the High Court by judgment and order dated April 22, 2008, against which this appeal is preferred by grant of a special leave.
In the departmental enquiry, the charges were established against him and on that basis he was awarded the punishment of termination of service which may number debar from future employment vide office memo dated August 16, 2003.
He was put under suspension on March 22, 2000, and a charge sheet was given to him on April 10, 2000.
He then made an application on September 30, 1993 for grant of earned leave from October 4, 1993 to November 2, 1993.
The respondent challenged his termination from service by filing a writ petition Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition number47118 of 2003 before the Allahabad High Court.
He left for the USA on October 3, 1993, but did number join his duties even after his leave was over.
No orders were passed on these applications.
He came back to India in the year 1999 and, according to him, joined his duties on November 22, 1999.
Instead, he kept on sending applications for extending the leave.
On December 23, 1991, he made an application for numberobjection certificate for obtaining visa for going to the United States of America.
The Government knew that the petitioner was in US.
He again left for the USA on the ground that his wife was unwell, once again sending applications for leave.
In this regard, the High Court made the following observations It is number disputed that the petitioner had been sending the applications from abroad for leave.
Finally, he came back to India and joined the service on June 1, 1995.
The respondent, a veterinary surgeon, was in the service of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.
In case the presence of the petitioner was required in India, the Government ought to have rejected the application of the petitioner and initiated the disciplinary proceeding at that time.
AFTAB ALAM, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
