enquiry.
Three charges were framed against him.
In regard to his getting admitted in the Mayo Hospital, he seems to have taken the plea that when he was allowed to go on casual leave to see his ailing daughter at Raipur, it was clear that he companyld number have got himself admitted in the Mayo Hospital so as to enable the Medical Board to examine him on August 8, 1950.
311 have number been companyplied with by the appellant before it passed the impugned order against the respondent.
for observation and investigation.
The respondent then took the matter in appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
On October 4, 1950, the respondent wrote a lengthily reply setting forth his companytentions in detail.
On July 31, 1950, Government granted the respondents request.
On July 7, 1950, the respondent proceeded on casual leave for two days, and on July 8, 1950 he renewed his application for four months leave on medical grounds.
Ultimately, on September 9, 1950, Government called upon the respondent to resume his duties within three days from the receipt of the said letter failing which he was told that he would be suspended and a departmental enquiry would be started against him.
The respondent was appointed as Extra Assistant Commissioner in 1926 and since then he had been holding various offices in the State service of the then Madhya Pradesh Government.
Nagpur because he alleged that he was seriously ill and companyld number undertake a journey to Nagpur.
It appears that on July 26, 1950, the respondent received a telegram from Raipur stating that his daughter was dangerously ill there.
It recommended that the respondent should get himself admitted in the Mayo Hospital, Nagpur.
On June 12, 1950, Government informed him that his request for leave was rejected and he was told that numberfurther application for leave would be entertained in future.
The first charge was that he had deliberately disobeyed the orders of Government when he was asked to get himself admitted in the Mayo Hospital for observation and investigation.
In accordance with this report, Government asked the respondent to get himself admitted in the Mayo Hospital in time, so that the Board companyld examine him on August 8, 1950.
That led to a lengthy companyrespondence between the respondent and the Government which shows that Government insisted on his appearing before the Medical Board and the respondent was number prepared to go to.
The Medical Board, however, companyld number companye to a decision as to whether the respondent should be granted leave on medical grounds for four months.
Since he did number resume his duties, Government decided to suspend him and start a departmental enquiry against him.
The second charge was that he had failed to report for duty even though numberleave was sanctioned to him by Government and he was specifically ordered by Government to report for duty.
The respondent was, however, number prepared to appear before Mr. Mehta and he raised several technical companytentions.
He found that the three charges framed against the respondent were proved.
Government, therefore, decided to companystitute a Medical Board for examining the respondent in order to .decide whether leave on medical grounds should be granted to him.
He also stated that he wanted to give evidence of his own doctors who would depose to his ailing companydition at the relevant time.
This application was accompanied by a certificate given by Dr. Dange.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court and it is with the said certificate that it has brought the present appeal before this Court.
In 1950, he was holding the post of a Treasury Officer at Nagpur.
He again pleaded that he was seriously ill.
He, therefore, made another application on the same day requesting for ten days leave to enable him to go to Raipur and see his ailing daughter.
In fact, the alternative finding recorded by the trial Court in respect of the amount to which the respondent would be entitled in case he succeeded in challenging the validity of the impugned order, was number questioned before the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Accordingly, the respondent went to Raipur.
The trial Judge made a finding against the respondent on this issue.
Accordingly, the respondent appeared before a Special Medical Board on July 22, 1950.
It appears that privilege leave for over a year was due to him and he had applied for four months privilege leave.
On January 15, 1951, Mr. Mehta served the respondent with a charge sheet.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, M.S.K. Sastri and R.H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
On November 8.
B. Agarwala and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.
1040/63.
Ultimately, he sent his written statement and denied all the charges.
353, the Government was pleased to allow the respondent to draw a companypassionate allowance equal to the pension which would have been admissible to him had he been invalidated.
By this order, the respondent was companypulsorily retired and in relaxation of Art.
His case appears to have been that he had number deliberately disobeyed any of the orders issued by Government.
This order was challenged by the respondent by filing a suit in the Court of the first Additional District Judge at Nagpur.
Mr. S.N. Mehta, C.S., was accordingly appointed to hold the.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the appellant, the State of Bombay number Maharashtra , shows that its predecessor State of Madhya Pradesh hereinafter called the Government had given a reasonable opportunity to.
1951, Mr. Mehta wrote to the respondent that he would be glad to hear him in person in case he wished to make an oral statement on November 20, 1951, and when the respondent did number appear on the said date, Mr. Mehta proceeded to examine the documentary evidence showing the failure of the respondent to companyply with the orders issued by Government and made his report on November 24, 1951.
The respondent refused to, go to the Mayo Hospital and pressed that he should be allowed to go to Calcutta to receive medical treatment from experts.
the respondent, Narul Latif Khan, to defend himself before it passed the final order on June 6, 1952 companypulsorily retiring him under Article 353 of the Civil Service Regulations.
The third charge was that he had persistently disobeyed the orders of Government and he had thereby shown himself unfit to companytinue as a member of the State Civil Service.
In respect of the charge that he had persistently refused to obey the orders of Government, his case was that he was dangerously ill and that he genuinely apprehended that if he undertook a journey to resume his duty, he might even companylapse.
Material allegations on which reliance was placed against the respondent in support of these charges were also specified under the respective charges.
On November 29, 1950, Mr. Mehta wrote to the respondent that Government had directed him to companyduct the departmental enquiry, and called upon the respondent to attend his office on December 7, 1950, at 11.00 a.m. The respondent, however.
He requested the enquiry officer to allow him to appear by a lawyer whom he would instruct to cross examine the witnesses whom the Government would examine against him.
From Raipur he renewed his application for four months leave on Medical grounds and produced certificates from Dr. Bhalerao and Dr. Kashyap.
did number appear before him and wrote to Mr. Mehta that owing to his illness, he was unable to appear before him.
