JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. D. K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. The petitioner herein has filed the instant writ petition, being aggrieved by the Removal Order, being No. CJM/CHA/597-01/2024 dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo, Sonari as well as the Order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority cum District Judge, Charaideo, in an appeal against the Disciplinary Proceeding Case No. 01/2024. CONSPECTUS OF FACTS : 3. The brief facts which led to filing of the present petition are – (A) COVID-19 pandemic spread across the World, sometime in the month of March, 2020. In order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, in the middle of March 2020, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had passed various directions curbing the movement of the people in an unforeseen and unprecedented manner and the Assam State Disaster Management Authority had also passed various directions regarding the same. (B) It may not be out of place to mention here that at that relevant point of time, if a person was seen wandering in the streets, the person was arrested, by invoking the power under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and a person, who is found sneezing or having a fever, is put in containment zones. If a person gets infected by COVID-19 virus, a stigma gets attached not only to him, but also to his entire family. (C) In the backdrop of the above, it is pertinent to take note of that all the Courts within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court were shut down during that time. However, sometime later, in the month of May 2020, on account of situations requiring extreme urgent matters to be heard, some Courts started functioning with a staggered roster. (D) It may not entirely be out of place to take note of that the Supreme Court also, in WP(C) Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2020, passed various orders, relaxing the period of limitation by taking into account the various difficulties which a litigant would face. (D) It may not entirely be out of place to take note of that the Supreme Court also, in WP(C) Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2020, passed various orders, relaxing the period of limitation by taking into account the various difficulties which a litigant would face. (E) The petitioner, who was working as a Grade-IV employee, has his native village situated at a distance of 21 kms from his office. The petitioner, during the period of COVID-19 pandemic, went to his native village at Adabari Chetia Handique Gaon and could not return on account of the various restrictions imposed by the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 that for the period from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020, the petitioner was put in the staggered roster and more particularly, in Group-B, vide an order dated 30.05.2020. (F) The petitioner could not attend his duty during the said period from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020 on account of there being no public transportation available during the relevant point of time and also for the fact that the petitioner did not had any private vehicle of his own. Be that as it may, the petitioner, on 09.07.2020, attended his office. On that day, a show-cause notice was issued to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar, Assam dated 06.07.2020 alleging inter- alia that the petitioner was absent from his office since 01.06.2020 till 06.07.2020, excluding the de-rostered days; which was unauthorised and was labeled as an act of insubordination. In addition to that, in the said show-cause notice, the petitioner was also informed that on earlier occasions also, there were two departmental proceedings against him, wherein, the petitioner had given written assurance that he would never be unauthorizedly absent in the future. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the same, within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice. (G) The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 15.07.2020, wherein, the petitioner had categorically mentioned that he went to his native village, which was located at a distance of 21 kms from Sivasagar town. The petitioner further stated that he neither had any means of private transportation nor public transport was available during that time. (G) The petitioner submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 15.07.2020, wherein, the petitioner had categorically mentioned that he went to his native village, which was located at a distance of 21 kms from Sivasagar town. The petitioner further stated that he neither had any means of private transportation nor public transport was available during that time. It was also categorically mentioned in the said show-cause reply that on account of COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown declared by the Government, the petitioner could not attend his duty from his backward village to Sivasagar. The petitioner also stated that though, he had given a written assurance that he would be regular in service, but on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, he could not attend his duties. (H) The respondent authorities, however, were not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and thereupon, issued a charge-sheet on 28.07.2020. A perusal of the said charge-sheet would show that the charge upon the petitioner, though, was on account of his absence unauthorizedly w.e.f. 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020, excluding the de- rostered days; but in the very charge sheet, it was also mentioned that sometime in the year 2017 and 2018, the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent and resultantly, two punishments had been imposed upon the petitioner. It appears from the reading of the charge sheet that in addition to the charge of unauthorised absence during the period from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020, the concerned respondent authorities had also charged the petitioner again for his unauthorised absence in the year 2017 and 2018, in respect to which, the petitioner had already been inflicted with punishment. (I) The list of documents which were enclosed to the said charge sheet are also of relevance, which are as follows – 1. Attendance Register. 2. Show-cause letter dated 06.07.2020. 3. Reply dated 15.07.2020 to show-cause letter. 4. Documents relevant to Disciplinary Proceedings Enquiry report dated 01.02.2018. 5. Documents relevant to Disciplinary Proceedings Enquiry report dated 21.12.2018. (I) The list of documents which were enclosed to the said charge sheet are also of relevance, which are as follows – 1. Attendance Register. 2. Show-cause letter dated 06.07.2020. 3. Reply dated 15.07.2020 to show-cause letter. 4. Documents relevant to Disciplinary Proceedings Enquiry report dated 01.02.2018. 5. Documents relevant to Disciplinary Proceedings Enquiry report dated 21.12.2018. (J) The petitioner submitted his written statement on 10.08.2020, stating inter-alia the reasons why the petitioner could not attend his duties during the period from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020; stating inter- alia that he went to his native village at Adabari Chetia Handique Gaon, which is located at a distance of about 21 kms from Sivasagar and also, there were no means of communication available at that time, due to the ban on transportation imposed by the Government. The petitioner also stated he has already been punished in respect of the first departmental proceeding, by imposing a punishment of barring him from drawing one annual increment without cumulative effect; and for the second departmental proceeding, two increments were withheld with cumulative effect for two years. Further, the perusal of the reply of the petitioner would show that the petitioner had pleaded with folded hands to duly take note of the reason as to why he could not attend his office. (K) The record reveals that an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who was the then Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Charaideo and the evidence which was recorded in the said departmental proceeding has been enclosed collectively as ‘Annexure-5’ to the writ petition. A perusal of evidence, which has been adduced on behalf of the department would show that apart from the documents which were furnished to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet, as referred to hereinabove, in pursuance to Rule 9(2) of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964); there were furthermore documentary evidence led. Thereupon, the Enquiry Officer submitted an Enquiry Report on 19.12.2023. (L) It is pertinent to take note of that on perusal of the said Enquiry Report, more particularly, under sub-heading (B), i.e., charges were framed against the petitioner. The Charges (ii) & (iii) are in respect to departmental proceedings which have already been held and thereupon, punishment were also imposed upon the petitioner. The Charges (i) & (v), however, related to the allegations pertaining to insubordination and unauthorized absence from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020. The Charges (ii) & (iii) are in respect to departmental proceedings which have already been held and thereupon, punishment were also imposed upon the petitioner. The Charges (i) & (v), however, related to the allegations pertaining to insubordination and unauthorized absence from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020. (M) This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the Charges (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv) were all taken up together and the finding of the Enquiry Officer appeared to be influenced by the Charges (ii) & (iii), being proved. (N) At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to note as to how the Enquiry Officer dealt with Charges (i), (ii), (iii) & (iv). It is surprising that the Enquiry Officer, while deciding the said charges, did not consider or even opined as to whether, the petitioner was barred by circumstances beyond his control to attend his office from his native village, which was at a distance of 21 kms from his office. This aspect was not at all addressed by the Enquiry Officer. On the other hand, what impressed upon the Enquiry Officer was that during the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the entire Indian Government machinery was put in a hold, but then also, the entire Indian Judiciary had showed exemplary characteristic and provided justice to the poor and needy and on the basis thereof, the Enquiry Officer came to a categorical finding that it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner deliberately remained absent in the office on his rostered days, from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020. (O) The record also reveals that in pursuance to the said Enquiry Report submitted, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit a representation cum written statement. The said opportunity, so granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo, appears to be in consonance with the settled principles of law, to the effect that an opportunity has to be granted, if an adverse Enquiry Report is made against a delinquent employee; by providing a copy of the Enquiry Report in respect to the penalty, which the disciplinary authority proposes to impose. (P) The petitioner submitted a reply, dated 02.01.2024, wherein, the petitioner pleaded that penalty be imposed upon him. (P) The petitioner submitted a reply, dated 02.01.2024, wherein, the petitioner pleaded that penalty be imposed upon him. Be that as it may, vide an order dated 05.03.2024, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of removal from service with immediate effect and it was also mentioned that the petitioner would forfeit his pension and gratuity. (Q) Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 15 of Rules of 1964 and the said appeal was dismissed vide an order dated 19.07.2025. (R) It is very pertinent to take note of as to how the Appellate Authority considered the defence that the petitioner, on account of residing at his native village, which was 21 kms away from his office; could not attend his office due to lack of public transportation and the petitioner did not had a private vehicle of his own. The Appellate Authority, at paragraph No. 22 of its order, has observed that as other employees could attend their duties, there was no justification for the petitioner not to attend his duty. (S) It is however, not out of place to observe that from the records, it would reveal that there was no evidence laid in the disciplinary proceeding by the department of any person, who was residing outside the town of Sivasagar, attending the office during the pandemic. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner, being aggrieved, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.” 4. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 19.02.2026, issued Notice and directed the respondents to bring on record their stand, by filing affidavits. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondents through the District and Sessions Judge, Charaideo, wherein, the facts narrated hereinabove have been mentioned. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the disciplinary proceeding and the punishment so imposed upon the petitioner were justified. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the orders of punishments which were imposed upon the petitioner earlier in the years 2017 and 2018 were enclosed. In addition to that, it is also mentioned that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.08.2023 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo, Sonari for coming late on various dates. The respondents have also enclosed the roster, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar on 22.05.2020 and 30.05.2020. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES : 5. Mr. The respondents have also enclosed the roster, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar on 22.05.2020 and 30.05.2020. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES : 5. Mr. D. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary proceeding, so initiated against the petitioner, more particularly, in respect to charge of misconduct; was absolutely unreasonable. The learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the charge-sheet, show-cause notice as well as the Enquiry Report would clearly show that the said departmental proceeding was initiated with a pre-conceived mind of imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a perusal of the Enquiry Report would also show that the said Enquiry Report suffers from perversity, in as much as the relevant factors which ought to have been taken into consideration which would have otherwise materially changed the outcome, were not taken into consideration. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the evidence taken from the various witnesses would nowhere show that the petitioner, in-spite of having the facilities during that period to attend his office from his native village, did not attended the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the petitioner could not attend the office for circumstances beyond his control, there cannot be a case of willful abstention from duty. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Appellate authority also did not consider the said aspect, which would be very much apparent from a reading of paragraph No. 22 of the Order passed by the Appellate authority. In addition to that, the learned counsel submitted that the imposition of punishment of removal from service, even if for unauthorised absence during the period in question; was grossly disproportionate. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned punishment so imposed vide Removal Order dated 05.03.2024 as well as the Appellate Order dated 19.07.2025 are required to be interfered with. 9. Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submitted that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and this aspect would be apparent from the fact that there were two earlier departmental proceedings, wherein, punishment was already imposed upon the petitioner. 10. Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 submitted that the petitioner was a habitual absentee and this aspect would be apparent from the fact that there were two earlier departmental proceedings, wherein, punishment was already imposed upon the petitioner. 10. Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 further submitted that the roster, so prepared on 22.05.2020 and 30.05.2020 by the learned CJM, Sivasagar, would show that the employees have been asked to attend their office on a staggered roster. Except the petitioner, all the other employees could attend the office and therefore, there was no justification for the petitioner not to be able to attend the office. 11. Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that this being the 3rd case of gross misconduct, the imposition of punishment of removal from service was justified. In addition to that, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the scope of interference in respect of departmental proceedings is limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in as much as unless, a case of gross perversity is noticed or there is any violation to the principles of natural justice, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be made. 12. Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that from a perusal of the records, more particularly, of the records of the departmental proceedings, which have been placed before this Court; would also show that there is no perversity in the Enquiry Report prepared by the Enquiry Officer. Additionally, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity and therefore, there was no violation to the principles of natural justice. 13. During the course of hearing, this Court enquired with the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, as to whether the said charge- sheet as well as the framing of Charges (ii) & (iii) by the Enquiry Officer, did not tantamount to a pre- conceived mind for imposing of a penalty, before arriving at a finding as regards to gross misconduct. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Yunus Khan Vs. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Md. Yunus Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , reported in (2010) 10 SCC 539 , wherein, at paragraph No. 34, the Supreme Court has held that if the disciplinary authority wants to consider the past conduct of the employee in imposing a punishment, the delinquent is entitled to notice thereof and generally the charge-sheet should contain such an article or at least, he should be informed of the same at the stage of the show-cause notice, before imposing the punishment. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 15. This Court had heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and had also perused the materials on record. 16. Before discussing the facts, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of as to when a punishment which has been imposed, can be interfered in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the opinion of this Court that a High Court can exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, if the action so complained against the imposition of the punishment is in violation to the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution. 17. It is very pertinent to mention here that Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates two aspects, one is Equality before law and the other is Equal Protection of the Laws. In so far as equal protection of law is concerned, if an action is held to be unreasonable, arbitrary as well as irrational, it would amount to violation of the ‘Equal Protection of the Laws’ clause, as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. The settled principles of law further stipulates as to what would be reasonable. In various judgments of the Supreme Court, it has been held that the Wednesbury’s principles of reasonableness would be the touchstone to decide as to what actions can be said to be reasonable. 19. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the observation of His Lordship A. Payasat (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr, reported in (2006) 2SCC 1 . 19. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the observation of His Lordship A. Payasat (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr, reported in (2006) 2SCC 1 . In the said judgment, His Lordship expositioned the principles of Wednesbury’s reasonableness and opined that unreasonableness contemplated in terms with the principles of wednesbury reasonableness would be when an action of an authority – (i) Is based on wholly irrelevant materials or wholly irrelevant consideration; or (ii) The Authority had ignored a very relevant material, which it should have taken into consideration; or (iii) The action of the Authority is such which no sensible person would ever have reached it. 20. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court test the aforesaid principles to the facts involved. As already stated in the previous segments of the instant judgment, the alleged misconduct, for which, the departmental proceeding was initiated, was at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was in full rigor. There were various notifications issued by the Government of India as well as the Government of Assam (the State Government) restricting movement from one place to the other, in a manner unforeseen and unprecedented. People were more concerned about their basic existence at that relevant time other than anything else. 21. The charges alleged against the petitioner were that he had absented from service from 01.06.2020 till 06.07.2020 unathorizedly, and there was therefore, a willful insubordination in as much as the petitioner, in the earlier departmental proceedings had given an undertaking that he would not repeat such incident in the future. 22. The petitioner had categorically pleaded in his show-cause reply as well as in the departmental proceedings that during the COVID-19 pandemic, he went to his native village, which was located at a distance of 21 kms from his office at Sivasagar town. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no availability of public transport and he did not own any vehicle of his own to attend his office. Apart from that, there were various restrictions imposed by the Government regarding transportation. 23. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there was no availability of public transport and he did not own any vehicle of his own to attend his office. Apart from that, there were various restrictions imposed by the Government regarding transportation. 23. A perusal of the entire Enquiry Report as well as the Order passed by the Appellate Authority, it would show that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Appellate Authority nowhere dealt with the said Defence of the petitioner, as to whether, the petitioner could have travelled from his native village, which is 21 kms away from his office at Sivasagar or for that matter, there is no finding that the petitioner was not at his native village. Apart from the above, the evidence which has been tendered on behalf of the department also did not show that any of these witnesses were residing at a distance beyond Sivasagar town and these witnesses were able to attend. In the opinion of this Court, non-consideration of the basic defence of the petitioner is a non-consideration of a relevant factor, which, if considered in the proper perspective, would have otherwise changed the course of the proceedings. 24. This Court has also perused the materials which have been adduced as evidence. A perusal of evidences would go to show that various employees had attended the office, but the petitioner had absented from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020. There is no denial by the petitioner, as regards to the fact that the petitioner was absent during the aforementioned period. It is further seen from the records and more particularly, the charges framed, the discussions made both in the Enquiry Report and the Appellate Order; that they were swayed by the fact that the petitioner had earlier conducted similar misconduct and was punished, which, in normal circumstances would have been reasonable. However, taking into account the period when the petitioner absented himself along with the reasons assigned by the petitioner; the consideration that the petitioner earlier absented himself was an irrelevant and extraneous consideration. 25. It is an unwritten Rule of Law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to a subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, ensuring the irrelevant and the remote. 26. 25. It is an unwritten Rule of Law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to a subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, ensuring the irrelevant and the remote. 26. This Court also finds it relevant at this stage to take note of the 3rd aspect, pertaining to when an action on the part of an authority can be said to be unreasonable, is when no sensible person could have ever reached to such a conclusion. 27. It is the opinion of this Court that no reasonable person sans a person who is completely insensitive and could have even drawn up a disciplinary proceeding against a person for being absent at a time when COVID-19 pandemic was wrecking havoc throughout the world and the only thing a human being was concerned of was a remedy/care to the COVID-19 virus. 28. There is no quarrel with the facts that on account of the COVID- 19 pandemic, various notification were issued by the Gauhati High Court mandating that it is only in extreme cases of urgency, matters are to be taken up; in view of the fact that the judiciary has also been impacted on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the Notification of this Court dated 12.06.2020 issued by the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court, wherein, it is categorically mentioned that even the Court complexes have not been spared by the COVID-19 pandemic, in as much as the COVID-19 infected persons have been traced from amongst the advocate fraternity and also the Judges serving in the District Courts. 29. Taking into account the above, it would go to show that not only the initiation of the departmental proceedings was unreasonable against the petitioner, but the Enquiry Report as well as the Appellate Court’s Order were also unreasonable, apart from being perverse; in view of the fact that the relevant factors have not been taken into consideration. 30. Considering the above, as the Enquiry Report dated 19.12.2023 is, on the very face of it, perverse and unreasonable, the punishment, so imposed on the petitioner on the basis of said Enquiry Report cannot be sustained in law. 30. Considering the above, as the Enquiry Report dated 19.12.2023 is, on the very face of it, perverse and unreasonable, the punishment, so imposed on the petitioner on the basis of said Enquiry Report cannot be sustained in law. In addition to that, the Order of the Appellate Authority dated 19.07.2025 also suffers from perversity and unreasonableness and violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 31. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another aspect, which is as to whether, the charge sheet which was issued upon the petitioner was with a pre-conceived mind to impose penalty upon the petitioner. 32. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, though, has referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Md. Yunus Khan (Supra) , more particularly, to paragraph No. 34; but the said law, so declared by the Supreme Court is misplaced in as much as the Supreme Court had categorically observed in the said paragraph that before imposition of penalty, the past conduct of an employee, if proposed to be taken into consideration; the same is required to be mentioned and an employee must be put to notice. In the instant case, it would be seen that before ascertaining as to whether, there is a case of misconduct, the past conduct of the petitioner was not only incorporated in the charge-sheet, but charges were also framed; which, in the opinion of this Court, shows that the departmental proceedings were initiated with a pre-conceived mind to impose penalty upon the petitioner. 33. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions- (i) The impugned Removal Order dated 05.03.2024 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Charaideo, Sonari is set aside and quashed. (ii) The impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated 19.07.2025 is set aside and quashed. (iii) The petitioner be reinstated in service with full backwages. The backwages be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of serving of certified copy of this judgment upon the respondent No.3. (iv) The petitioner is directed to join within 10 (ten) days from the date of the present judgment. (iii) The petitioner be reinstated in service with full backwages. The backwages be paid within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of serving of certified copy of this judgment upon the respondent No.3. (iv) The petitioner is directed to join within 10 (ten) days from the date of the present judgment. (v) This Court, however, observes that during this period from 01.06.2020 to 06.07.2020, as the petitioner was admittedly absent, the said period be treated as ‘Leave without Pay’. (vi) No costs.