I agree with the interpretation that as a general rule for presuming abandonment, the presumption starts from the first day of absence (read first working day). Since the rule is very specific that the first three days would be treated as LOP, the question remains as to what treatment could be given to the three days of LOP where the absence exceeds the said three days. Here we also have to see the intention of absconding from the work, it arises only after three days of absence. So this is a qualifying pre-condition and hence such a condition could not be treated as substantive one.
Sir, as you are aware the courts frown upon the presumption of abandonment and has repeatedly held that mere absence alone would not justify the presumption of abandonment and the Principles of Natural Justice have to be read into it. The rule of three days of absence rendering presumption of abandonment, you would agree, is harsh and unequitable. Having faced a lot of difficulties in warding off the challenge against presumption of abandonment with 30 days of absence, I would advice a cautious approach.
Sir, as you are aware the courts frown upon the presumption of abandonment and has repeatedly held that mere absence alone would not justify the presumption of abandonment and the Principles of Natural Justice have to be read into it. The rule of three days of absence rendering presumption of abandonment, you would agree, is harsh and unequitable. Having faced a lot of difficulties in warding off the challenge against presumption of abandonment with 30 days of absence, I would advice a cautious approach.