Short Note : 1. The petitioner has been reverted from the rank of Revenue Inspector to that of a Patwari after a departmental enquiry held against him on the ground of misconduct. The order imposing this penalty is Annexure-O, dated 23-9-1972, passed by the Collector, Damoh (respondent No. 1). By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks a writ to quash this order reverting him from the post of Revenue Inspector to that of a Patwari. 2. A letter Annexure R-9 dated 11-8-1971 together with a charge-sheet and the statement of allegations in support thereof was given by the Collector, Damoh, to the petitioner intimating the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him. The substance of the charge was that from 21-7-1971 the petitioner remained absent from duty without prior sanction of his leave which amounted to breach of Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, which reads as under :- "7. Proceeding on leave by Government servants.-No Government servant shall proceed on leave (casual or otherwise) before it has been sanctioned provided that in a case of emergency the authority competent to sanction leave may for reason to be recorded in writing accord ex-post facto sanction for leave already availed of". 3. Held : The only argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was suddenly taken ill on 21-7-1971 on account of which he had to proceed on leave prior to its sanction. This argument is obviously based on the exception permitted in rule 7 itself according to which in a case of emergency the authority competent to sanction leave is permitted to accord ex-post facto sanction for leave already availed of, for reasons to be recorded in writing. It is, therefore, obvious that unless the petitioner has been able to show that his proceeding on leave without prior sanction on 21-7-1971 was in a case of emergency, the facts not in controversy alone prove breach of this provision. To bring his case within this exception, petitioner set up the case of his sudden illness. At the enquiry no evidence was led by the petitioner to prove this fact alleged by him and the Enquiry Officer has found it as a fact on the basis of evidence led that the petitioner's case of illness is only a lame excuse and not a reality. At the enquiry no evidence was led by the petitioner to prove this fact alleged by him and the Enquiry Officer has found it as a fact on the basis of evidence led that the petitioner's case of illness is only a lame excuse and not a reality. This conclusion on a question of fact is based on material present before the Enquiry Officer and the total absence of any rebuttal thereof by the petitioner. We may also add that even at the hearing before us, the petitioner's counsel could not even tell us the name of the illness with which the petitioner claims to have suffered suddenly requiring him to proceed on leave without prior sanction in the aforesaid manner on 21-7-1971. If even the name of that illness cannot be given out till today, the inference against the petitioner is obvious even assuming this question of fact could be gone into at this stage. Petition dismissed.