( 1 ) THE petitoiner was a conductor in the Karnataka, State Road transport Corporation ("hereinafter referred to as the Corporation ). He applied for leave from 1-9-1968 to 30-9-1968 on medical grounds. After the leave was sanctioned, the petitioner went to his native place. According to the petitioner he was ill even beyond 30-9-1968 and he was under the treatment of an Allopathic Doctor in his native place for chest pain. After he recovered from the illness, he submitted a leave application on 21-9-1970 along with a medical certificate requesting the Deputy General Manager, hassan, who was the competent authority to sanction leave for the period during which he was absent and to take him on duty. The Dy. General manager declined to do so on the ground that the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of the Corporation in view of Rule 6 of Part III of the ksrtc Empployees Leave Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). An appeal filed before the General Manager against the order of the Dy. Genl. Manager was not successful. Hence this writ petition. It was argued by Sri K. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the fact that no enquiry had been held by the Corporation to determine wheher the petitioner had ceased to be in the service of the corporation the order passed by the Dy. Genl. Manager and the Genl. Manager were liable to be quashed and the Corporation should be directed to hold an enquiry to decide the said question. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Narandas barot v. J. D. Rathod, AIR 1966 SC 1364 . ( 2 ) IN that case also there- was a regulation which provided that irregular attendance, absence without leave and without reasonable cause and failure without sufficient cause to report when directed fox duty amounted to acts of misconduct which entailed the punishment of discharge or removal from service. The Supreme Court was of the view that it was obligatory on the part of the transport authority to hold an enquiry into the alleged act of misconduct before taking a decision on the question whether the workman should be discharged or removed from service. ( 3 ) RULE 6 of Part III of the Rules reads as follows :" 6. ( 3 ) RULE 6 of Part III of the Rules reads as follows :" 6. Continuous absence: Unless the administration otherwise determines an employee shall cease to be in service if he is continuously absent from duty for one year whether with or without leave unless such absence is absence on foreign service. "a reading of the above Rule shows that it is open to an employee even when he had absented continuously for one year to show to the administration that he should not be treated as a person not in the service in view of certain circumstances that prevented him from attending to duty during the relevant period. It may also be possible for an employee to show that he was not in fact continuously absent from duty for one year. Even though Rule 6 states that an employee shall cease to be in service] if he is continuously absent from duty for one year the management cannot be absolved of its responsibility to hold an enquiry into the question whether an employee has ceased to be in service or not because there is scope for the management to take a contrary decision having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of a given case. It may be that when at the conclusion of the enquiry the management comes to the conclusion that there is no ground to take a contrary view an employee would be declared as having ceased to be in the service of the Corporation. But since there is sufficient scope for the employee appealing to the administration to retain him in service notwithstanding the fact that he had not attended to duty for one year I am of the view that the holding of an enquiry into the cause of the petitioner's absence would still be necessary. ( 4 ) SRI Appa Rao learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation however brought to my notice the following statement found in para 3 of the affidavit of the petitioner :" As I fell ill from 1-9-1968 I applied fox leave from 1-9-1968 to 30-9-68 on medical grounds due to chest pain and the same was sanctioned by the respondent 2. After the sanction of leave I went to my native place at belame Village. After the sanction of leave I went to my native place at belame Village. Since I could not recover from my illness I was taking treatment for the chest pain from an Allopathic Doctor at my village. After 1 recouped my health I approached the respondent 2 and to sanction leave. I aso submitted the Medical Certificate along with my leave application. I submitted my leave application on 21-9-1970 with the Medical certificate. A true copy of my application for sanction of leave is produced herewith marked as Ext. 1. Instead of granting my request to resume my duty I was issued a Divl. Establishment Order No. 698/70 bearing No. MST hsn!est/17954/70-71 dt. 27-10-70/3-ll-70 by the respondent 2 and the same is produced herewith marked as Ext. 2'. In that establishment order i was informed that my' name has been ordered to be removed from the establishment of Hassan Divn. with effect from 1-10-1969 having ceased to be in service of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation in pursuance of clause No. 6 Part III of the MSRTC Employees Leave Rules 1964 as I have remained absent for one year from 1-10-1968" ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above statement found in the affidavit filed in support of the petition Sri Appa Rao argued that the petitioner had not made out any case for Condonation of the unauthorised absence and hence no useful purpose would have been served by holding an enquiry in the instant case. I do not think that Sri Appa Rao is right in the above submission. A perusal of the order of the appellate authority shows that the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the Dy. Genl. Manager because it was not satisfied about the truth of the allegation that the petitioner waa taking treatment for chest pain from an Allopathic Doctor at his village and that conclusion of the appellate authority was reached on the ground that no evidence had been placed in support of that case. The very fact that the appellate authority thought that evidence was necessary to decide the above question establishes the necessity for an enquiry The finding of the appellate authority also shows that if he had been satisfied that the petitioner was really ill and was under treatment when he was at his village he would have taken a different view of the whole matter. I do not therefore find any substance in the submission made by Sri Appa Rao in the result this petition is allowed The orders passed by the Deputy general Manager Hassan and the General Manager of the Corporation are set aside. The respondents are directed to hold an enquiry and decide the question whether the petitioner's services should be treated as having ceased by reason of his continued absence for one year. They are also directed to consider whether in the circumstances of the case it was possible to condone the absence of the petitioner and to take him back to duty subject to such condition like denial of salary for the period during which he has not worked for the Corporation In the circumstances of this case i am of the view that till the conclusion of the enquiry the petitioner is not entitled to claim any salary or allowance. The question whether he is entitled to any salary or allowances shall be governed by the result of the enquiry. The petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. --- *** --- .