IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.139 of 2005 PREM LATA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 12.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Relief sought for is for arrears of salary for certain periods on alleged procedural irregularities in the departmental proceedings. The allegations are of unauthorized absence for the periods in question. The law stands well settled that a mere application for leave shall not amount to a sanction of leave. The employee departs at his own peril. Once the petitioner has admitted that she proceeded on leave without any orders sanctioning her leave, the allegations of unauthorized absence stand admitted. That she may have an explanation for the absence is a different matter. If the charge be admitted the question of any procedural irregularities in the departmental proceedings looses its relevance. In AIR 1972 SC 32 (Channabasappa Basappa Happali Vrs State of Mysore) the charge of unauthorized absence was admitted. It was held that once unauthorized absence was admitted it was virtually a plea of guilt. In such a situation there could not be a complaint of any alleged procedural irregularities in the departmental proceedings. Similar view has been taken in (2008) 5 SCC 569 (Chairman and Managing Director VSP & ors. Vrs Goparaju Shri Prabhakara Hari Babu) again a case of unauthorized absence it was held at paragraph 16 as follows:- “16. …….. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. It was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed……” The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)