ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - The petitioner was a Lekhpal in Tabsil Sadar in the district of Bareilly. On 9-11-1960 the Collector passed an order transferring him to Tahsil Baheri. That order was served on the petitioner on 11-11-1960 and on 12-11-60 the petitioner made an application to the District Magistrate, Bareilly that his transfer may be stayed. It was stayed till 80-11-60. On that date he sent an application for Leave for 12 days on the ground that he was suffering from dysentery. On 16.12-1960 he sent another application for further leave of 15 days. On 80-12-1960 he sent another application for one months leave. On 14-2-1961, 14-3-1961 and 2-5-1961 he again sent applications for leave, either on account of his own illness, or on account of the illness of his child, or on account of the illness of hie wife (vide paragraph 6 of the petition.) On 3-7-1961 the petitioner came to the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer Bahari to give evidence in some case and on 4-7-1961 a charge sheet (annexure 0 to the petition) was served on him. The petitioner was charged for having disobey ed the Collectors order for taking I charge at Baheri, for having absented himself I from duty from 30.11-60 till 4-7-1961 and I also for having knowingly refused on 29-1-1981 to take service of the order dated 12-1-1961, passed by the S. D. O. The petitioner I gave his explanation (Annexure 1) to the I charges. The petitioners explanation was considered by the S. D. 0., who held the various charges established and proposed the punishment of dismissal for which the petitioner was again asked to show cause as to why the aforesaid penalty be not inflicted on him. The petitioner again submitted a lengthy explanation which was finally considered by the S. D. O., who, by his order dated 24-1-1962, dismissed him from service with effect from 30.11.1960, the date of his alleged I absence from duty. 2. The order of the dismissal passed by the S. D. O., was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector on June 24, 1968 and the Commissioner rejected the revision application filed against the order of the Additional Collector, hence this petition. 3. Mr. 2. The order of the dismissal passed by the S. D. O., was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Collector on June 24, 1968 and the Commissioner rejected the revision application filed against the order of the Additional Collector, hence this petition. 3. Mr. N.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner was really ill and that he did not get any information that his applications for leave had been refused, and therefore, respondents were not justified in holding him absent from duty and thereby punishing him. I find no substance in these contentions. 4. It will be noticed that since 30-11-1960 when the petitioner was to take charge at Baheri he went on sending applications for leave either by post or through messenger; sometimes on the ground of his illness sometimes on the allegation that his wife and children were ill till he was served a charge sheet on 4th July, 1961. Thus for a period of about eight months he did not care to find out the fate of his various applications for leave. During this period of eight months admittedly the petitioner himself was not bedridden and that is why he made applications for leaves on the ground of illness of his wife and children which could not prevent him from coming to the Court of the S.D.O. and find out as to whether his applications for leave have been granted or rejected. The conduct of the petitioner to remaining at his home for a period of about eight months without caring to find out the fate of his applications for leave is not becoming of a servant of the State. 5. I have read the impugned orders of the S. D. 0.; the Additional Collector, and the Commissioner. They do not suffer either from want of jurisdiction or any error apparent on the face of the record. On the other hand, I find that they are eminently just and proper except in one respect. 6. The petitioner was dismissed on 24th January 1962 with effect from 30.11-1960. Paragraph 75 (3) of the Manual of Government Orders provides that in the case of a Government servant placed under suspension the order of dismissal or removal shall take effect from the date on which the suspension, had come into effect. In this case the petitioner was suspended on 4-7-61. Paragraph 75 (3) of the Manual of Government Orders provides that in the case of a Government servant placed under suspension the order of dismissal or removal shall take effect from the date on which the suspension, had come into effect. In this case the petitioner was suspended on 4-7-61. The order of dismissal, therefore, should take effect, in view of the aforesaid Government orders, from 4-7-61 instead of 80-11-1960. It is true that these orders do not have any statutory force' but the S. D. O., as a State servant, had to follow these orders. 7. In the result, while I uphold the order of the dismissal of the petitioner as passed by the respondents, I direct that the same will take effect from the date of his suspension, i. e. 4-7-61. There will be no order as to costs.