ORDER 1. The petitioner relies upon the fact that leave to appeal was granted by this Court in a similar case, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 595 and 596 of 1912, but on a further consideration of the question we agree with the recent decision Hume, Public Prosecutor of Calcutta v. Poresh Chandra Ghosh 22 Ind. Cas. 324 : 41 C. 784 : 15 Cr. L.J. 52 : 19 C.W.N. 593. that disciplinary proceedings under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are not appealable under Clause 39, and that we have no power to give leave to appeal to the Privy Council from an order passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction. This is also the view taken in Ganesh S. Dandvate v. Government Pleader 32 B. 106 : 10 Bom. L.R. 21 : 3 M.L.T. 131. In Tetley v. Jai Shankar 1 A.726. also it was held that no such leave could be granted and though in the subsequent case from Allahabad, In the matter of Sashi Bhushan Sarbadhicary 34 I.A. 41 : 11 C.W.N. 273 : 29 A. 95 (P.C.); 4 A.L.J. 34 : 9 Bom. L.R. 9 : 17 M.L.J. 74 : 5C. L.J. 130 : 2 M.L.T 1. it appears that leave was granted by the Allahabad High Court, the reports show that special leave to appeal was obtained from their Lordships before the appeal was heard. 2. The application is dismissed.