A. N. DIVECHA, J. :, J. ( 1 ) THE decision of the learned Extra assistant Judge of Junagadh rendered on 7th October 1983 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 115 of 1990 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the original plaintiff-appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the code for brief ). Thereby the learned lower Appellate Judge dismissed the present appellants appeal and affirmed the judgment and the decree passed by the learned Second Joint Civil Judge (J. D.) at Junagadh on 25th August 1980 in Regular Civil Suit No. 878 of 1978. It is needless to state that thereby the learned Trial Judge dismissed the present appellants suit. ( 2 ) THIS litigation has somewhat chequered history behind it. The appellant joined the services of the respondent herein on and from 20th May 1968. He served at various places and lastly he was transferred to the ayurvedic dispensary at Koyli, Taluka Vanthali. It appears that he was not happy with his transfer at that place. He thereupon adopted all possible means (fair and foul) to avoid that transfer or to have him re-transferred from that place. He often proceeded on leave without obtaining prior permission or without giving prior intimation to his superior authority. That resulted in his inviting a penalty of stoppage of five increments without any future effect by one order passed on 17th December 1974 by the District Health authority of junagadh. A copy of that order is at Exh. 35 on the record of the case. It appears that he continued to indulge in that practice even thereafter. He again went on remaining on leave without prior permission and without giving any prior intimation. Thereupon he was served with one charge sheet on 4th August 1975. Its copy is at Exh. 27 on the record of the case. The document containing the articles of charge is at Exh. 28 on the record of the case. An inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charge levelled against the present appellant under the charge-sheet at Exhs. 27 and 28 on the record of the case. On conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. It is annexed to the forwarding letter at Exh. 30 on the record of the case. An inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charge levelled against the present appellant under the charge-sheet at Exhs. 27 and 28 on the record of the case. On conclusion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. It is annexed to the forwarding letter at Exh. 30 on the record of the case. The inquiry officer found the charge against the appellant to have been duly proved. Thereupon, what is popularly known as the second show-cause notice came to be issued to the appellant calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The appellant filed his reply thereto on 15th November 1976. Its copy is at Exh. 31 on the record of the case. The disciplinary authority thereupon, by its order passed on 27th December 1976, imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect. A copy of the order of penalty is at Exh. 32 on the record of the case. The aggrieved appellant thereupon carried the matter further in appeal before the appellate authority. It appears that his appeal was not made in the prescribed manner, and as such it was not accepted at that stage. It was not dismissed on merits. This was conveyed to him by the order passed by the appellate authority on13th April 1977. Its copy is produced before this Court in response to the communication served by the learned Advocate calling upon him to produce that letter. It appears that thereupon the appellant preferred another appeal to the appellate authority questioning the correctness of the order of penalty at Exh. 32 on the record of the case. The appellate authority appears to have examined the record and appears to have come to the conclusion that the penalty awarded to the present appellant under the order at Exh. 32 on the record of the case was inadequate. The appellate authority thereupon ordered the proceedings for enhancement of the penalty. A copy of the decision of the appellate authority in that regard is at exh. 42 on the record of the case. Thereupon the show-cause notice for the purpose came to be issued to the appellant. Its copy is at Exh. 41 on the record of the case. The appellant gave his reply thereto on 7th February 1978. Its copy is at Exh. 43 on the record of the case. 42 on the record of the case. Thereupon the show-cause notice for the purpose came to be issued to the appellant. Its copy is at Exh. 41 on the record of the case. The appellant gave his reply thereto on 7th February 1978. Its copy is at Exh. 43 on the record of the case. It appears that, as required under the relevant provisions contained in the gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1984 (the Rules for convenience) framed under Section 323 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1961 (the act" for brief), the Gujarat Panchayat seva Selection Board was consulted before passing the order of penalty against the present appellant. The appellate authority, after seeking advice from the gujarat Panchayats Seva Selection Board, ordered the appellants removal from service by the order passed on 6th July 1978. Its copy is at Exh. 44 on the record of the case. Aggrieved thereby the present appellant instituted one suit against the respondent herein in the Court of the civil Judge (S. D.) at Junagadh questioning the correctness of the order at Exh. 44 on the record of the case punishing him with his removal from service. The suit came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 878 of 1976. The respondent herein as the defendant filed its written statement at Exh. 11 on the record of the case and resisted the suit on various grounds. The suit appears to have been assigned to the learned 2nd joint Civil Judge (J. D.) at Junagadh for trial and disposal. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Judge framed the necessary issues at Exh. 12 on the record of the case. No oral evidence was led at trial. After recording the documentary evidence and hearing the parties, by his judgment and decree passed on 25th August 1980 in Civil Suit no. 878 of 1978, the learned 2nd Joint civil Judge (J. D.) at Junagadh dismissed the suit. That aggrieved the present appellant. He carried the matter in appeal before the District Court of Junagadh. His appeal came to be registered as regular Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1980. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Extra Assistant Judge of junagadh for hearing and disposal. That aggrieved the present appellant. He carried the matter in appeal before the District Court of Junagadh. His appeal came to be registered as regular Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1980. It appears to have been assigned to the learned Extra Assistant Judge of junagadh for hearing and disposal. After hearing the parties, by his decision rendered on 7th October 1993 in Regular civil Appeal No. 115 of 1980, the learned extra Assistant Judge of Junagadh dismissed the appeal. The aggrieved appellant has thereupon invoked the further appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid decision of the learned Extra assistant Judge of Junagadh. ( 3 ) SHRI Padiwal for the appellant has urged that the appellate authority had become functus officio after having dismissed the appeal in the first instance preferred by the present appellant against the impugned order of punishment at Exh. 32 on the record of the case. Shri Padiwal for the appellant has urged that the appeal in the second instance made by the appellant for challenging that very order could not have been entertained on that ground. If the appeal in the second instance was imcompetent, runs the submission of Shri Padiwal for the appellant, the appellate authority was not justified in taking action for enhancement of the penalty. Shri Raval for the respondent has on the other hand submitted that the appeal in the first instance against the impugned order at exh. 32 on the record of the case was not disposed of on merits but was not entertained on account of certain technical defects. The appeal in the second instance preferred by the present appellant against the order at Exh. 32 on the record of the case was found to be in order and it was therefore entertained. In that view of the matter, runs the submission of Shri Raval for the respondent, no fault can be found with the appellate authority in entertaining the appeal in the second instance and to exercise the appellate power of enhancing the penalty on the ground of its inadequacy. ( 4 ) IN this connection, Rules 13 and 14 of the Rules deserve attention. Rule 13 thereof prescribes the procedure for preferring an appeal against an order of : punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. ( 4 ) IN this connection, Rules 13 and 14 of the Rules deserve attention. Rule 13 thereof prescribes the procedure for preferring an appeal against an order of : punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. Rule 14 thereof provides for withholding of appeals against orders of punishment. An appeal against an order of punishment thereunder could be withheld inter alia if it does not comply with any of the provisions of Rule 13 thereof. It has been provided therein that an appeal withheld on the ground that it does not comply with provisions of Rule 13 thereof shall be returned to the appellant and if re-submitted within one month after compliance with the said provisions, it shall not be withheld. As | pointed out hereinabove, at the instance of the learned Advocate for the appellant, the order rejecting the appeal in the first instance by the appellant against the order at Exh. 32 on the record of the case was produced. That order is of 13th April 1977. It appears therefrom that the appeal was not dismissed but it was withheld on two grounds, namely, it did not become clear from the appeal as to which of the two , orders was under challenge and that a copy of the order of penalty was not annexed with the appeal memo as required under the Rules. It thus becomes clear from the order passed on 13th April 1977 that the appellant was informed that his appeal was withheld. This was in consonance with the proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules though it is not properly articulated. inarticulation cannot obviously invalidate an otherwise legal and valid order. It appears that thereafter the appellant preferred another appeal against the order at Exh. 32 on the record of the case within the time-limit prescribed in the proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules. This appeal in the second instance was entertained and in that context the appellate authority exercised its jurisdiction to order the proceedings for enhancement of the penalty. That was within the powers of the appellate authority under Rule 16 (l) (c) (i) of the rules. Proviso (ii) thereto has also been complied with by issuing the required show-cause notice at Exh. 41 on the record of the case. The present appellant was given the required opportunity of hearing before the order of enhancement of the penalty at Exh. Proviso (ii) thereto has also been complied with by issuing the required show-cause notice at Exh. 41 on the record of the case. The present appellant was given the required opportunity of hearing before the order of enhancement of the penalty at Exh. 44 was passed by the appellate authority. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no fault can be found with the appellate authority in entertaining the present appellants appeal in the second instance and to exercise his powers of enhancement of the penalty after entertaining that appeal. ( 5 ) SHRI Padiwal for the appellant has then urged that the impugned order at exh. 44 on the record of the case cannot be sustained in law as the pros and cons for award of the extreme penalty of economic death are not examined by the appellate authority. This submission looks attractive at the first sight as the order at Exh. 44 on the record of the case is somewhat inarticulate in that regard. That order has however to be read in the light of the decision made by the appellate authority at Exh. 42 on the record of the case at the time of examining the record of the case while entertaining the present appellants appeal in the second instance. That decision was required to be taken with a view to ordering proceedings to be taken for enhancement of the penalty. Without that decision perhaps the necessary show-cause notice why the penalty should not be enhanced could not have been issued. It transpires from the tentative decision at Exh. 42 on the record of the case that the appellate authority has considered the past conduct of the present appellant and his continuous practice of remaining absent without leave even after suffering the first punishment of stoppage of five increments without future effect under the order at Exh. 32 on the record of the case. In the opinion of the appellate authority, such practice of remaining absent without leave on the part of the appellant not only put the government to jeopardy but it also caused health hazards to patients taking treatment from him in the ayurvedic dispensary at Koyli. In this context, the reply of the appellant at Exh. 43 to the show-cause notice at exh. In this context, the reply of the appellant at Exh. 43 to the show-cause notice at exh. 41 on the record of the case was considered by the appellate authority and then the extreme punishment of his removal from service was ordered under the impugned order at Exh. 44 on the record of the case. ( 6 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that a vaidya in the service of the pancyayat is a medical practitioner first and a panchayat servant later. Professional ethics for medicos would also demand a medical practitioner to follow such practive in life. It is common knowledge that the moto of the medical profession is service before self. A doctor cannot just refuse to treat a patient simply because it is inconvenient for him to do so. A medical practitioner cannot afford to remain negligent qua treatment of his patients. It is an submitted position on record that the appellant was posted as a medical practitioner in the ayurvedic dispensary at Koyli (Taluka Vanthali ). Koyli is certainly a village in Taluka Vanthali in the District of Junagadh. In our country villagers are by and large inhabited by ignorant and illiterate persons. A village in India does not often have any medical practitioner in allopathy. The allopathic doctors are often reluctant to serve in village in our country. The district panchayats in our State have been doing yeoman service by opening ayurvedic dispensaries to cater to the needs of ailing inhabitants of villages. Inhabitants of a village might contact or contract various kinds of ailments and diseases. They have to be treated to the best of his ability and competence by the medical practitioner or the vaidya posted in that village. He cannot remain negligent in his duties. He cannot remain indifferent to his service. He cannot just ignore the requirement of villagers in the place of his work. Any dereliction in his duty in that regard should visit him with the severest possible consequences. His absence from work, his indifference to his service, his negligence of his patients and the like are certainly unpardonable acts of ommision. Such a medical practitioner can certainly never be retained in service. Any dereliction in his duty in that regard should visit him with the severest possible consequences. His absence from work, his indifference to his service, his negligence of his patients and the like are certainly unpardonable acts of ommision. Such a medical practitioner can certainly never be retained in service. In the instant case, soon after his posting in the ayurvedic dispensary at Koyli, the appellant remained absent for nearly a couple of months with a view to avoiding his transfer therefrom and with a view to seeking his re-transfer therefrom. He was subjected to the disciplinary proceedings and he was visited with the penalty of stoppage of five increments without future effect in terms of the order at Exh. 68 on the record of the case. Even thereafter he remained absent for six months without leave. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the appellate authority has rightly imposed the penalty of the present appellants removal from service under the order at exh. 44 on the record of the case. ( 7 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, i am of the opinion that no interference whatsoever is called for in the impugned decision rendered by the lower Appellate court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 115 of 1980. ( 8 ) IN the result, this appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed. .