Judgment SHAH,, J. ( 1 ) AGAINST the respondent who was employed in 1960 as a deputy Collector in the Revenue Department of the State of Madhya pradesh an enquiry was held on the following incharges : "1. That you, after handing over charge of your office as Deputy collector, Satna, on 27/08/1958, in pursuance of your transfer order No 6359-6331-1, dated 8/8/1958 issued by the general Administration Department, failed to join at Raisen on the expiry of your joining time and remained absent from duty till 1/02/1959, even though the leave applied for by you was not sanctioned by government. ( 2 ) ). That on return from leave in the month of November, 1959, you were posted to the Sehore District. At your own request you were permitted to report for duty at Sehore on the 30th november, 1959, vide General Administration Department demi-official letter No 6772-5179-1 (ii), dated 20/11/1959. However, you did not join on the due date and sent a telegram to the Collector (copy being sent to the State government that you were injured in accident and that you would report on the 8/12/1959. Even on this date you did not join nor did you send any intimation. Ultimately you reported for duty on the 25/01/1960. And thus by remaining wilfully absent from dotty- (1) from the date on which your joining time expired till 1/2/1959 apparently to evade orders of transfer, and (2) from 8/ 02/1959 to the 24/01/1960 to evade orders of posting to Sehore, you have committed an act of grave misconduct and have thereby rendered yourself liable to disciplinary action on the above charges. the Enquiry Officer made a report on 2/05/1951, holding the respondent guilty of those charges. The Enquiry Officer observed : "i think that the conduct of Shri Harihar Gopal as disclosed in this enquiry was irresponsible in extreme and can hardly he justified. It is also for the State Govt. whether his request for taking a compassionate view should be considered favourably. " 1. The State government issued a notice to show cause why the respondent should not be removed from service, and after considering the representation made by him, by a communication, dated 9/03/1962, ordered removal of the respondent from service. An appeal filed by the respondent to the governor of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed on 29/07/1963.- 2. " 1. The State government issued a notice to show cause why the respondent should not be removed from service, and after considering the representation made by him, by a communication, dated 9/03/1962, ordered removal of the respondent from service. An appeal filed by the respondent to the governor of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed on 29/07/1963.- 2. The respondent then moved a petition in the High court of madhya Pradesh for an order, infer alia, quashing the order, dated 9/03/1962, for removal of the respondent from service aid the subsequent order of the governor, dated 29/07/1963. The High court of Madhya pradesh declared the orders dated 9/03/1962 and 29/07/1963 invalid. on the ground that the "state government bad on 9/03/1962 authorised the respondents absence from duty and it was not open to the State government to proceed on the basis of the respondents absence from duty. Such a conclusion, in the view of the High court, "was not only without evidence but also perverse and therefore, clearly unsustainable". Against the order of the High court, this appeal is preferred with special leave. ( 3 ) ). The details of dereliction with which the respondent was charged may be first set out. The respondent who was holding in the month of august, 1958 the office of Deputy Collector, Satna, was by order, dated 8/08/1958 transferred to District Raisen. The respondent failed to report himself for duty at Raisen "within joining time", and on 12/09/1958, sent at Elegram that he will report for duty on 26/09/1958. The respondent did not join duty as promised, and on three successive occasions be applied for extension of time and promised to join on 11/12/1958. He did not join at Raisen even on 11/12/1958, and on 19/12/1958 the respondent was informed that his transfer to Raisen had been cancelled and that be should immediately report for duty at Dewas. The respondent did not report for duty as directed and applied for leave till 22/01/1959, promising to join on 23/01/1959. Even this promise the respondent failed to carry out. He ultimately reported for duly on 2/02/1959 at Dewas. While at dewas the respondent again "proceeded on leave on medical grounds. " after the expiry of the period of leave, he was informed that he was posted at Sehore. Even this promise the respondent failed to carry out. He ultimately reported for duly on 2/02/1959 at Dewas. While at dewas the respondent again "proceeded on leave on medical grounds. " after the expiry of the period of leave, he was informed that he was posted at Sehore. On 16/11/1959 the respondent sent a telegram that he will report on November, 1959, but he failed to do so and sent an application for extension of leave till 29/11/1959. The respondent was ordered to report for duty on 30/11/1959; but he again failed to comply with the order, and asked for extension of leave till 8/12/1959 and ultimately reported for duty at Sehore on 25/01/1960. ( 4 ) ). The respondent in failing to report for duty as ordered and in remaining absent without obtaining leave in advance was guilty of grave dereliction of duty. Whether on account of illness of his wife or himself as be claims the respondent was unable to report for duty, notwithstanding the promises made by him, is a matter with which we are not concerned. It was for the Enquiry Officer to determine whether the respondent was prevented on account of illness or other circumstances over which be bad no control from reporting for duty as ordered. ( 5 ) ). The High court, however, was of the view that since on 9/03/1962, two orders were passed by the State government-one removing the respondent from service and the other granting him leave till 4/03/1960- and that by the order granting leave the respondents absent from duty was regularised, the State government-was incompetent to remove the respondent from service on the ground that he was "absent from duly unauthorisedly". ( 6 ) ). In our view, the conclusion of the High court cannot be sustained. The order terminating the respondents service by paragraph 8 states : "now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appear Rules, the State government are pleased to order that the said harihar Gopal is hereby removed from service" this order bears No. 1481-288, (ii) I, dated 9/03/1962. Copies of ibis order have been forwarded to various authorities under endorsement No. 1482-288/1 (ii) also dated 9/03/1962. The order granting leave is also dated 9/03/1962 : its No. is 1491-299/l (ii) and it recites. Copies of ibis order have been forwarded to various authorities under endorsement No. 1482-288/1 (ii) also dated 9/03/1962. The order granting leave is also dated 9/03/1962 : its No. is 1491-299/l (ii) and it recites. Shri Harihar Gopal, Deputy Collector, is granted leave as here under : (a) Earned leave for 29 days with effect from 28-8-58 to 23-9-58 ; (b) Half pay leave for 40 days with effect from 26-9-58 to 4-11-58; (c) Leave without pay for 89 days from 5-11-58 to 1-2-59, for 76 days from 12-11-59 to 26-1-60, and for 18 days from 16-2-60 to 4-3-60. " this order was also communicated to the Commissioner, Bhopal division, Collector, Vidisha and the incharge Finance Department, bhopal. Evidently the order granting leave was made after the order terminating the respondents employment. ( 7 ) ). It was urged before the High court on behalf of the State that the order granting leave was only for the purpose of regularising the absence from duty and for maintaining a true account of absence from duty, and bad not the effect of first sanctioning leave to the respondent to which he was entitled and then removing him from service for absence from duty. The High court rejected this contention observing : ". . . . . . . . . . . . When the leave was granted even though belatedly, it had the effect of authorising with retrospective effect the petitioners (respondents) absence from duty during the period for which it was sanctioned. Having thus authorised the petitioners (respondents) absence from duty. it was not open to the State government to proceed on the basis that his absence was unauthorised. " these observations proceed upon a misconception of the sequence in the orders passed by the State government and the true effect of the order granting leave The order granting leave was made after the order terminating the employment and it was made only for the purpose of maintaining a correct record of the duration of service, and adjustment of leave due to the respondent and for regularising his absence from duty. Our attention has not been invited to any rules governing the respondents service conditions under which an order regularising absence from duty subsequent to termination of employment has the effect of. invalidating termination. Our attention has not been invited to any rules governing the respondents service conditions under which an order regularising absence from duty subsequent to termination of employment has the effect of. invalidating termination. Both the orders, one terminating the employment of the respondent, and the other granting leave are made "by order and in the name of the governor of Madbya Pradesh", and they are signed by L B. Sarje. Deputy secretary to the government of Madbya Pradesh, general Administration Department. We are unable to hold that the authority after terminating the employment of the respondent intended to pass an order invalidating the earlier order by sanctioning leave so that the respondent was to be deemed not to have remained absent from duty without leave duly granted. ( 8 ) ). There is another aspect of the case which also does not appear to have been considered by the High court. The charge against the respondent was that he bad absented himself "without obtaining leave in advance". The Enquiry Officer characterized the conduct of the respondent as "irresponsible in extreme and can hardly be justified. " the Enquiry Officer clearly intended that in failing to report for duty and remaining absent without obtaining leave, the respondent had acted in manner irresponsible and unjustified. On the finding of the Enquiry officer that charge was proved and the order, dated 9/03/1962, had no effect on the charge that the respondent had remained absent without obtaining leave in advance. ( 9 ) ). It was submitted that after the High court set aside the impugned order the respondent was allowed to join duty and has continued to serve the State, and that after five years this court should not set aside the order of the High court and uphold the order of termination. But this is a matter which must be dealt with by the State government and not by this court. ( 10 ) ). It appears however that the respondent had raised certain other contentions which have not been dealt with by the High court on the view taken by them en the first contention. The orders passed by the High court will therefore be set aside and the proceeding will bo remanded to the High court to be dealt with and disposed of according to law. There will be no order as to costs.