JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. The appellant was employed as Supervisor Kanungo on November 29, 1965, he made an application for casual leave and without obtaining prior written order sanctioning him leave he left the station. Thereafter, he applied for further extension of leave by several applications which were all rejected. He was also placed under suspension by an order dated January 17, 1966. Charges were drawn up and an enquiry was held. Subsequently, the file appears to have become untraceable. The file was attempted to be reconstituted. Meanwhile, on April 5, 1968 the order of suspension of the appellant was revoked and he was reinstated. After a formal enquiry The Collector, Kanpur, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of having left the station without obtaining a formal permission. For this misconduct the appellant was awarded the punishment of a warning. With regard to the suspension period, the Collector directed that 3/4th of the pay will be allowed for this period. The period of suspension will count towards duty and pension both. The appellant will also get the amount of allowances due to him from time to time. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The memorandum of appeal was a long and elaborate document. The appellant invited the attention of the Commissioner to the decision in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 240 in which it was held that an order under Rule 54 is not always a consequential order nor is such order a continuation of the departmental proceeding taken against the employee. It is based on positive considerations and an opportunity to show cause 'against the proposed action should be given. The appellant requested the Commissioner to take a decision in his appeal keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Commissioner considered the matter and ultimately dismissed the Appeal. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition. A learned Single Judge held that the charge was admittedly proved. The allegation that the appellant was not given an appropriate opportunity to defend himself was not established. This was not a fit case for interference. On these finding the writ petition was dismissed. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition. A learned Single Judge held that the charge was admittedly proved. The allegation that the appellant was not given an appropriate opportunity to defend himself was not established. This was not a fit case for interference. On these finding the writ petition was dismissed. In appeal it has been argued that even though the appellant may have been found guilty of absence from duty without prior permission and may have been punished for it, yet the further order depriving him in one fourth pay for the period of suspension being an order under Rule 54, attracted the cannons of natural justice. Admittedly, no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to show cause against such an order. It may be that the Collector did not give a fresh opportunity to show cause as to why the salary of the appellant should not be reduced for the period; but nonetheless it is against the impugned order. In that the appellant did not even whisper that an opportunity should be given to him. The Memorandum of appeal was an elaborate document. The appellant stated all that he desired to say with regard to the merits as well as the action under Rule 54. On facts the appellant had had an ample opportunity to have his say with regard to fundamental Rule 54 before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, however, affirmed the order of the Collector obviously on the footing that the facts and circumstances of the case deserved it. The grievance of the appellant that the order passed under Rule 54 violates the principles of natural justice is, under the circumstances, futile. Under the circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed: but we make no order as to costs.