Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In relation to grant of a sand quarry the respondent No. 5 took up the matter in revision under Rule 45 of the Bihar Mines and Minerats Concession Rules, 1972 before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Bihar. The authority issued an order of ad interim stay on 8-2-2002. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said ex-part order has come to this Court levelling number of allegations against the private respondents so also against the respondent No. 2. The specific allegation made against the respondent No. 2 was that for the period between 7-2-2002 and 10-2-2002 the concerned officer was on casual leave, such authority was not available for passing the orders, the authority must be held to have passed an order contrary to law even when he was not working in the office. In fact insinuations and imputations have been made not against the Officer but against the manner in which the order has been passed by the authority. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 so also for the respondent No. 5 have stated before this Court that though the respondent No. 2 was on special causal leave for the period between 7th and 10th February, 2002 but in accordance with the Appendix 13 appended to the Bihar Service Code, 1952 on officer, who is on special casual leave, would be deemed to be on duty and such an officer shall still retain jurisdiction to pass an order in accordance with law. Contending contrary to this learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the interpretation of casual leave/special casual leave put forth by the respondents runs contrary to the very spirit of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 and the language employed in Appendix 13. It is contended by him that once a man is on leave then he does not have jurisdiction to pass order because if the argument of the respondents is accepted it will lead to an impossible situation. 4. I have heard the parties at length. 5. Rule 166 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 provides that absence from duty for short periods on casual leave is not governed by the Rules under Chapter VI. 4. I have heard the parties at length. 5. Rule 166 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952 provides that absence from duty for short periods on casual leave is not governed by the Rules under Chapter VI. I am referring to Rule 166 simply to say that the period of causal leave is deemed to be an absence from the duty for short periods. Absence from duty on causal leave for short periods would not amount to a break into the service or would affect the payment of the salary, as lucidly discussed in Appendix 13. 6. Clause 1(a) of Appendix 13 provides as under: The Government of India, have ruled that Fundamental Rule 85 does not apply to casual leave for short period, such leave is not recoginzed and is not subject to any rule. Technically, therefore, a Government Servant on casual leave is not treated as absent from duty, and his pay is not intermitted. Government will not replace Government servant absent on such leave. The Government servant granting the leave and the Government servant taking it will be held responsible if the public service suffers in any way from the absence of the Government servant on causal leave. Casual leave, however, must not be given so as to caused an revision of the rules: (i) date of reckoning pay and allowances; (ii) charge of office; (iii) commencement and end of leave; (iv) return to duty: or so as to extend the term of leave beyond the time admissible by rule. 7. Bare and fair perusal of Clause 1(a) shall provide that the Fundamental Rule, 85 made applicable by the Government of India are not to apply to casual leave for short periods. Such a leave is not recognized and is not subject to any rule. According to Clause 1(a) where a man is on casual leave he is not treated as absent from duty and his pay is not intermitted. From this phrase learned Counsel for the respondents says that as the period of absence is not treated to be absence from duty and the pay of such an officer is not intermitted or adversely affected, such an officer would have jurisdiction to discharge the official works. From this phrase learned Counsel for the respondents says that as the period of absence is not treated to be absence from duty and the pay of such an officer is not intermitted or adversely affected, such an officer would have jurisdiction to discharge the official works. In my considered opinion, the interpretation put forth by the learned Counsel for the respondents is patently illegal and misconceived and is in oblivion of the legal principle which governs the causal leave. 8. When a person proceeds on leave and he has no leave in his accounts then the period of the leave, unless regularised by the authority competent to grant leave would amount to break in the service. In a case where the leave is so regularised but there was nothing in the account of the leave or there is no credit in favour of the Government servant then such leave may be treated to be leave without pay and the concerned authority the competent Government may direct that such period would be treated to be period of leave without pay but would not amount to discontinuance in the service. When casual leave is granted it clearly provides that neither there would be a break in the service nor the pay would be affected. In fact casual leave is granted to an officer/Government Seryant to meet the urgencies, exigencies or emergencies in the life. The other leave which are admissible to a Government servant are governed by the leave Rules but the casual leave is not Government by the Rules but is concession give by the appropriate Government to the Government Servants/Officers. The Government Servant on casual leave is not treated as absent from the duty only for the purposes of continuance in the service and for payment of the salary but that does not mean that he would still retain jurisdiction to discharge the official function or pass orders: The Government servant granting leave (Officers competent to grant leave) and the Government servants taking it will be held responsible if the public service suffers in any way from the absence of Government servant on casual leave." This phrase used in Clause 1(a) does not mean that the person, who takes leave would be duty bound to pass orders to avoid any sufferance to the public service. This phrase used in Clause 1(a) simply suggests that while granting the leave the competent Officer shall take into consideration that whether in a given case leave should be allowed or not and if such leave is granted whether the public service would suffer or not. That does not mean that the leave cannot at all be granted to a person. The Officer, who takes the casual leave, before taking causal leave is to take into consideration or consider the fact that whether his absence would cause public service to suffer. This in any case does not mean that he would retain his jurisdiction to pass orders while on leave. The phrase used in Clause 1(a) simply means that while granting the leave or while taking the leave the Officer granting and the Officer taking would take into consideration the public sufferance and work which is likely to be affected because of the absence of such an Officer. It does not mean that while on leave especially on casual leave, the Officer/Government Servant would continue to retain tha jurisdiction and pass order. If this construction, made by the respondents is accepted, in fact, it would lead to an impossible situation. Such Officer would be deemed to be on leave on one hand and at the same time would have jurisdiction to receive the matters and pass orders. It would lead to an anarchism especially in the area of the bureaucrats and the Administrative Officers. At one side the officer would not come to the office and at the same time wherever he is, he would be deemed to be on duty and would start passing orders. It would lead to a situation where nobody would know that when an order was passed, why it was passed and for what particular reasons it was passed. 9. Clause 1(a) further provides that the casual leave, however, must not be given so as to cause an invasion of the Rules regarding- (i) date of reckoning pay and allowances; (ii) charge of office; (iii) commencement and end of leave; (iv) return to duty. 10. This provision would not show that a person, who proceeds on sanctioned casual leave would retain jurisdiction to pass the orders. 10. This provision would not show that a person, who proceeds on sanctioned casual leave would retain jurisdiction to pass the orders. When an Officer/Government servant proceeds on leave he, in fact, surrenders his jurisdiction in his office and resumes the same back when he returns back to the office on rejoining the duty. What is to be redeemed on joining the duty cannot be exercised while a person is on leave. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and the private respondents are devoid of force worth rejection and are accordingly rejected. The order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 8-2-2002 deserves to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed. This order, however, would not affect the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2 in passing fresh interim or, final order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. The present petitioner shall also be entitled to raise the question of the jurisdiction of the authority to hear and decide the matter. 12. The petition is allowed.