JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner had sought medical leave for a period of 40 days from 21.11.2004 to 30.12.2004, which has been refused and the period has been treated to be unauthorised absence from service by the impugned letter of the bank dated 10.3.2005. It has also been directed by that letter that the salary for this period should be deducted with all consequential effect. 3. The petitioner was posted at Chandausi, District Moradabad with the respondent-Bank of Baroda. He belongs to District Auraiya, which was earlier part of Etawah District. The petitioner had gone on 5 days privilege leave to his home town. According to the petitioner’s case, while returning, the petitioner became unconscious at the Railway Station Etawah and because of this the petitioner undertook medical treatment and investigation at Etawah and then at Agra at a hospital approved by the respondent-bank. Fortunately, no major health problem was diagnosed and the petitioner resumed his duties on 30.12.2004. 4. Under the Regulations of the bank, medical leave is permissible under Regulation 34. The period of medical leave permissible is 30 days for every completed year of service. It is not disputed by the bank that the petitioner was not entitled to medical leave of 40 days, according to the said Regulation. 5. The technical objection to the grant of medical leave is that under the said Regulation medical leave can be granted only where a medical certificate is acceptable to the bank or medical certificate obtained from a Medical Practitioner nominated by the bank is produced. 6. Further technical objection is that instead of getting himself checked up and treated at Agra the petitioner should have got himself checked up at Bareilly at the approved hospital of the bank because such a direction had been given by the bank to the petitioner. 7. It is common knowledge that Etawah to Agra is a very short distance and there are direct fast trains on that route, while Etawah to Bareilly is comparatively longer and slower route. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has urged that the petitioner has disclosed no major illness. 7. It is common knowledge that Etawah to Agra is a very short distance and there are direct fast trains on that route, while Etawah to Bareilly is comparatively longer and slower route. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has urged that the petitioner has disclosed no major illness. The apprehension which can arise in the mind of a middle-aged man in case of falling unconscious suddenly are more serious than actual major illness and normally in such situation a person would be inclined to go through the comprehensive and detailed check up. Moreover, it is not denied that the bank has paid to the petitioner the medical reimbursement for the treatment taken by the petitioner. Further, the treatment at Agra was at a hospital approved by the respondent-bank. 9. Due to all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the objection of the bank is highly technical. 10. There is nothing substantial against the petitioner, e.g. it is not the case of the bank that this medical leave was taken by the petitioner on a false pretext to avoid a transfer order or any other such situation. 11. In the circumstances, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 10.3.2005 and direct the respondent-bank to treat the said period of 40 days as medical leave in accordance with the said Regulation 34 without insisting on any technicalities, mentioned above. ———