JUDGMENT Dayal, J. - This is a special appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Jagdish Sahai dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The appellant was an Inspector in the Octroi Department of the Municipal Board of Shahjahanpur. He proceeded on medical leave which he kept on extending. The last extension prayed for was upto the 28th November 1954. It is not clear from the record as to from which date this extension of leave was applied for. The appellant stated in paragraph 3 of his affidavit that he had been sanctioned leave upto the 28th November 1954. This was not specifically denied in the counter-affidavit but it was stated in paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit, in reply to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit. that it became doubtful whether the appellant genuinely stood in need of leave on medical ground and that he was ordered on the 20th October 1954 to report to the Civil Surgeon of Shahjahanpur for medical examination and to submit a certificate from him in support of his illness. This order of the Municipal Board was not received, according to the counter-affidavit, by the appellant. The Municipal Board peon returned it. A second order was then sent per registered post to the appellant stating his non-accepting the previous order from the peon, his not complying with the directions contained in that order for the submission of a medical certificate and asking him to submit a Civil Surgeon's certificate by the 15th November 1954. This order further communicated that in case he did not comply with these orders he should treat himself to be removed from service of the Board. This registered envelope was also not actually delivered to the appellant. The postal peon reported that he had been to the addressee's place on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th November 1954 and did not meet him. It further said that the addressee made himself scarce and that the envelope was being returned as refused. On the 29th November 1954 the appellant was informed that he had been relieved of the service. Thereafter the appellant submitted an appeal to the Government, which was rejected in June 1956. The appellant then filed the writ petition. 3. It further said that the addressee made himself scarce and that the envelope was being returned as refused. On the 29th November 1954 the appellant was informed that he had been relieved of the service. Thereafter the appellant submitted an appeal to the Government, which was rejected in June 1956. The appellant then filed the writ petition. 3. The learned Judge did not agree with the contentions that the appellant could not be dismissed while on leave, that his dismissal was in contravention of the rules, that he had not been given an opportunity of showing cause before he was dismissed and that, therefore, the principles of natural justice had been infringed. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and are of opinion that there is no force in this appeal. We have not been referred to any particular rule making it incumbent upon the Municipal Board to take any formal proceeding before dismissing an employee. We have been referred to what is printed at the top of page 454 of the Municipal Manual, Volume I, 1952 edition, as the necessary rule. We are clearly of opinion that this is not a rule framed by the Government under the U. P. Municipalities Act. What is noted there is from circulars of 1879 and 1881 and the language of this note itself is clearly expressive of the fact that this is not a rule but an enunciation of a sound principle. Similarly what is printed at page 654 of the same Manual are not the rules framed by the Government but are model draft regulations to be framed by the Municipal Board. 4. Reliance is placed on the case of Sri S. D. Mathur v. The Municial Board, Agra, 1956 A.L.J. R. 71 in support of the contention that what is printed at pages 454 and 654 are rules framed by the Government under its rule making power under Sec. 296 of the U. P. Municipalities Act. It was not considered in that case whether these notes at pages 454 and 654 of the Municipal Manual are rules framed by the Government or are mere salutary directions. What we have said above is, therefore, not in any way against what has been said in that case. 5. It was not considered in that case whether these notes at pages 454 and 654 of the Municipal Manual are rules framed by the Government or are mere salutary directions. What we have said above is, therefore, not in any way against what has been said in that case. 5. The infringement of the principles of natural justice is said to be on account of the appellant being not served with any notice to show cause why he be not dismissed on account of his not complying with the directions given for the submission of a medical certificate. The Municipal Board again is not at fault in this connection. The learned Judge has left the question open and has observed, "To my mind the petitioner has not succeeded in proving that he was not given an opportunity of showing cause." 6. We consider it desirable that we ourselves also do not express any final opinion on this question of fact. The circumstances in connection with the service of various orders have been narrated above. We see no good reason to form any opinion different from that formed by the learned Judge on this point. 7. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss this appeal.