Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner who is a Veterinary Doctor, has challenged in this petition his impugned order of termination. There were in all 8 charges out of which two charges were found not to be proved, one of them was embezzlement. Three charges were found partially proved and three charges were found fully proved. One of them was serious charge of negligence in discharge of his duty. (2). Learned counsel Shri Trivedi for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of termination on two grounds (i) that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case in the departmental enquiry as he was not paid subsistence allowance for some time. In support of his submission, he has relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in Fakir Bhai vs. Presiding Officer & Anr. (1) and Ghanshyam Das Srivastava vs. State of M.P. (2). In Ghanshyam Dass case (supra), the petitioner was employed as an authorised Ranger by the State. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 300/- before his suspension. He was placed under suspension on October 16, 1964 and thereafter not paid subsistence allowance till March 1965. On facts of that case, the Apex Court held that lack of timely payment of subsistence allowance to employee facing inquiry during period of suspension amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the order of dismissal was set aside. In Fakir Bhais case (supra), the petitioner was workman. During the pendency of reference of a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act made to the Industrial Tribunal, the Management initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the workman. The workman was denied subsistence allowance. Under the circumstances, the Apex Court held that because of denial of subsistence allowance, it was not possible for the workman to effectively defend himself before the Tribunal in the proceedings relating to the proceed- ings under Sec. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. (3). In the instant case, the petitioner was a Veterinary Doctor. He was initially paid subsistance allowance but later on it was stopped. When the grievance was made he was paid the same later on. In my humble opinion, the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court will have no application to the facts of this case. The petitioner herein was a Doctor, of course a Veterinary Doctor. But, he could have definitely earned. When the grievance was made he was paid the same later on. In my humble opinion, the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court will have no application to the facts of this case. The petitioner herein was a Doctor, of course a Veterinary Doctor. But, he could have definitely earned. In any case there is nothing to show that he was pennyless. In fact one of the allegations was of embezzlement. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend his case. (4). Second submission of Mr. Trivedi that the petitioner was to informed about two dates, therefore, he could not participate in the enquiry whereby a serious prejudice is caused to him, therefore, the entire enquiry is vitiated, has no substance. To substantiate his submission, Mr. Trivedi has relied upon Rule 16(6)(d) of the Rules of 1958. The same is reproduced hereunder:- ``In case of joint departmental enquiry under Rule 18 or in the case of enquiry under Rule 16 of these rules, the Government servant/s fail/fails to appear without sufficient cause on the date fixed for the hearing of which he had the notice, the Inquiring Authority may proceed with the enquiry in the absence of such Govt. servant(s). (5). It clearly says that if the Government servants fail to appear without sufficient cause on the date of inquiry then the inquiry authority may proceed with the inquiry in the absence of the Government servant. In this case, the petitioner remained absent on two dates on the ground that he was not paid subsistance allowance. This cannot be said to be a sufficient cause. Therefore, the Inquiry Offi- cer rightly proceeded against him. In fact, he was already informed about the inquiry. He participated in the inquiry also but later on refrained himself from participating only on the ground that his subsistance allowance was not paid. (6). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this case. It fails an is dismissed.