1. ' GHULAM RASOOL SHEIKH (CHAIRMAN).-The appellant had proceeded on leave for 4 days casual leave with effect from 2nd March, 1975. On the expiry of his leave he did not resume duty but sent a telegram requesting for extension of leave for 3 days on account of serious illness of his wife and his request was granted. Again he applied for further leave up to 5th April, 1975 and did not return till 9th April, 1975 when the Mukhtiarkar made a report to the Assistant Commissioner. It was alleged that on account of his absence the work of Jamabandi greatly suffered. Consequently be was charge-sheeted and after due enquiry he was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from service by the Deputy Commissioner. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner who had taken lenient view and stopped 2 increments without cumulative effect. Consequently the present appeal has been filed.
2. It has been urged that the absence of the appellant was due to the ,t fact that he had applied for leave and it ought to have been sanctioned.
3. ' We are unable to accept this contention as the grant of leave is not a right of the Government servant. It is upto the competent authority to grant or refuse the leave. Moreover, it appears from the charge-sheet that the appellant remained absent from 6th to 8th without any leave. Thus there can be no manner of doubt that he was guilty of misconduct and the punishment which was awarded by the Commissioner cannot be said to be excessive and therefore, there is no justification for interference.
4. ' In the result the appeal is summarily dismissed.