WA 263/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA Amitava Roy, J The judgment and order dated 01.08.2011 passed in WP(C) No.3830/2011 disposing o f the said writ proceeding constitutes the subject matter of challenge in the in stant appeal. We have heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Deka , learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam. The writ appellant, who at the relevant time was a member of the Assam Civil Ser vice Class-II being taken ill, applied for earned leave for a period of 3(three) months with effect from 15.09.1986, which was on his request made thereafter, e xtended. Eventually, the State Standing Medical Board on examination on 11.11.1 987, declared him to be fit to resume duties with immediate effect with advice t o avoid excessive mental and physical strain for a period of six months and for utilization of his service as an indoor setting. The petitioner did not resume h is duties allegedly without any authority. He, thereafter, on 16.08.1997 submit ted an application before the appropriate State authority citing health ground a nd tendering his resignation from service. Prior thereto, a departmental procee ding had been initiated against him for his continued absence from duties. He approached this Court with WP(C) No.5365/2008 impugning the aforementioned de partmental proceeding. While disposing of the writ proceeding by the order dat ed 02.11.2010 this Court inter alia noticed that on 05.09.2008 he had submitted an application before the Commissioner & Secretary of the Department to permit h im to resume his duties. In view of the above and the omission on the part of th e State authority to take a decision on his letter dated 16.08.1997, this Court observed that he continued to be a government servant. Having taken note of the further fact that the petitioner had pursued the prayer made in his application dated 05.09.2008 by a subsequent one dated 12.09.2008, which, also by then had r emained undisposed, this Court closed the writ proceeding with a direction to th e Commissioner & Secretary, Govt. of Assam Personnel (A) Department to consider amongst others the request made by the petitioner for allowing him to resume ser vice in the same cadre and for dropping the departmental proceeding. By order da ted 06.04.2011 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Personne l (A) Department, the reliefs as prayed for in the application/representation ha ve been declined. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has left uninterfer ed the order dated 06.04.2011 with a direction for expeditious completion of the departmental proceedings. In issuing said direction, the learned Single judge a mongst others observed that the fact of the unauthorised absence of the writ pet itioner is admitted. Mr. Baruah, has urged that in the face of the pendency of the departmental proce eding on the charge of unauthorised absence against the petitioner, the observat ion made by the learned Single Judge about his admission of such absence would r educe the departmental proceeding to a formality. According to the learned coun sel, as the petitioner at no point of time had admitted his unauthorized absence , in the interest of justice and for a fair departmental proceeding the above ob servations ought to be expunged or suitably modified. Mr. Deka, learned State counsel fairly submits that the limited relief sought fo r in the instant appeal may be acceded to. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the r elevant materials on record, we are of the view that the plea raised before us a s needs attention. As the respondent authorities are allowed to take necessary decision on the peti tioner’s prayer depending on the outcome of the departmental proceeding, in the factual background, we are of the view that if the above observation of the lear ned Single Judge is construed as an admission on the part of the writ appellant/ writ petitioner of his unauthorised absence from duty, it would make the pending enquiry only an empty ritual. As a matter of fact, there is no such admission on his part on this charge. The appeal is thus partly allowed with the clarification that the respondent aut horities while conducting the departmental proceedings against the petitioner wo uld not either infer or construe any admission on his part on the charge of his unauthorized absence. No costs.