WP(C) 3830/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R . Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. The petitioner, an ACS Officer, who is unauthorisedly absence from his d uties w.e.f. 15.9.1986, has called in question the order dated 6.4.2011 passed b y the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Personnel (A) Department, by which in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, the following direction has been issued :- Whereas until and unless the departmental proceeding in the matter of unauthori zed and un-intimated absence drawn up vide Show Cause Notice No. AAP.6/94/45 dat ed 14-12-95 and the fresh departmental proceeding proposed to be drawn up as per provision of FR 18 of FRs and SRs are concluded, the prayer of Shri Mrinal Khou nd, ACS for (i) allowing him to rejoin in service in the same cadre (ii) droppin g the departmental proceeding pending against him (iii) regularizing the period of absence (iv) sanctioning admissible leave including Extra Ordinary Leave and (v) providing other service benefit including admissible subsistence grant can n ot be considered at this stage and would completely depend upon the out come of the departmental proceedings already drawn up and proposed to be drawn up agains t him which are expected to be expedited and concluded at the earliest. By the impugned order dated 6.4.2011, a representation made by the petit ioner on 12.9.2008 has been disposed of, in which entire facts relating to absen ce of the petitioner from duty for the last about 25 years have been narrated. T he petitioner after remaining absent from duty for so many years, cannot now cla im as a matter of right that he should be allowed to rejoin duty. In fact, in th e earlier order of this Court dated 2.11.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 5365/2008 dire cted the authority to pass appropriate order keeping in mind that the petitioner did not come forward to resume. It was also kept open for the respondent author ities to proceed against the petitioner for unauthorized absence. In view of the above, the order dated 6.4.2011 cannot be said to be ille gal. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner is absent from duties unautho risedly for two decades. In view of the above, it will be appropriate for the respondents to conc lude the departmental proceeding as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind th at since the facts of unauthorized absence is admitted, there is no question of prolonging the departmental proceeding. As has been held by the Apex Court in AI R 1972 SC 32 (Channabasappa Basappa Hapali Vs. State of Mysore), admission of fa ct stated in the Article of Charge amounts to admission of guilt. It will be app ropriate for the respondent authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding with utmost expedition with passing of the appropriate order. There is no questi on of payment of any back wages to the petitioner on the principle of no work no pay. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands dis posed of, without however, any order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Sta te Counsel, for her necessary follow up action.