RAN VAJAI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by one Sri Kiran Shanker Shukla who happened to be Constable in Police Department. He was transferred on 30. 6. 1997 from District Allahabad to District Gorakhpur on the basis of his own request. He was relieved from Allahabad to join at place of his posting in October,1997 to be more specific on 2. 10. 1997. However on that date he could not go to join his duty as after reliving he has fallen ill on 4. 11. 1997. During this period he was hospitalized in Police Hospital allahabad. However, there was one week time for joining and he went to his home district Deoria but unfortunately fallen ill, and was admitted in police Hospital, Deoria. After discharge from the Hospital he has been advised by Doctor for bed rest, as he was suffering from jaundice. However, on 23. 6. 1998 the Medical Officer, Police Hospital Deoria has found him fit and advised for joining duty and thereafter petitioner has joined his duty on 1. 7. 1998. ( 2 ) AFTER his joining, petitioner was served with two show cause notices on 26. 4. 1998. One was with respect to award of an adverse entry in his service record for being negligent in discharging his duties by not joining the place of posting within time. The other show cause notice was for submitting explanation as to why period of absence w. e. f. 12. 11. 1997 to 1. 7. 1998 be not treated as leave without pay. In response to the notices two different replies have been given by the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority has passed two orders on the same day i. e. 5. 11. 1999. By one order he has awarded adverse entry to the petitioner and by another order his leave was sanctioned without pay w. e. f. 12. 11. 1997 to 1. 7. 1998. Aggrieved from these orders the petitioner has filed two appeals and those appeals have also been dismissed on 10. 7. 2000. Against these orders he has filed revision which were also dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:- "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5. 11. 7. 2000. Against these orders he has filed revision which were also dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayers:- "1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5. 11. 1999 (Annexure No. 14) passed by respondent No. 4 whereby adverse entry was recorded as well as the orders dated 10. 7. 2000 (Annexure No. 18) and 25. 1. 2001 (Annexure No. 22) passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively in appeal and revision respectively arising out of the order dated 5. 11. 99 (Annexure no. 14); 2. 2. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5. 11. 99 (Annexure no. 15) passed by respondent no. 4 whereby leave without pay has been sanctioned as well as the orders dated 10/11. 7. 2000 (Annexure No. 19) and 25. 1. 2001 (Annexure No. 23) passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 2 respectively in appeal and revision respectively arising out of the order dated 5. 11. 99 (annexure No. 15); 3. issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period 12. 11. 97 to 1. 7. 98 along with full emoluments and compound interest @ 10% by treating the petitioner as on medical leave during the said period. 4. issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. Award the cost to the petitioners a counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents. In which it has been stated that the petitioner holds a disciplined post and he was absent from duty without informing the competent authority. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has informed the authorities about his absence and produced medical certificates prior to the date of joining. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that everything was sent through post. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards Regulation 382 where it is provided that it is the duty of the hospital to intimate the local Superintendent of Police if the employee has fallen ill and admitted in the hospital. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that everything was sent through post. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards Regulation 382 where it is provided that it is the duty of the hospital to intimate the local Superintendent of Police if the employee has fallen ill and admitted in the hospital. The Regulation 382 of U. P. Police Regulations is reproduced below:- "382. Under officers and constables who fall ill when on duty or who are ill when due to return to duty, must apply for admission to the district police hospital or for treatment at the nearest dispensary, if the police hospital is out of easy reach. The fact of their admission or treatment must be reported to the local Superintendent of Police who, unless they are his own subordinates will taken immediate steps communicate the fact to the Superintendent of Police whose subordinates they are. Officers of higher rank are not compelled to apply for admission to police hospitals, but are not relieved of the responsibility, when on leave, of intimating their intention of obtaining medical certificate to the Superintendent of police as prescribed above. " ( 4 ) I have carefully examined the above regulation and I find that there is no indication that intimation will be given by the Doctor and hospital authorities to the local Superintendent of Police. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived as once the petitioner got himself admitted in the hospital for treatment of jaundice it cannot be said that he could not move even to write an application and sent through the registered post and how could he presumed that it was duty of the hospital authority to inform the local Superintendent of police about the disease of the patient. There is no suggestion on record ( 5 ) THAT he has requested to the Hospital authority to intimate the local superintendent of Police. But for the sake of the argument even if it is presumed that he has bonafidely been under the impression that information about illness could be sent by Police Authority, even then he has not made any effort after discharge from the Hospital to know about the intimation of his illness to the S. S. P. Gorakhpur where he was required to join. This shows the apathetic attitude of the petitioner towards his duty. I have heard Sri Manoj Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State respondents. ( 6 ) IT is settled that there can be no interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India with the findings of fact recorded in the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority. Interference can only be made if the findings are perverse and passed on no material available on record. Further if in a given case if two views are possible to be taken on the available material and one view has been taken by the Authority then there can be no interference with the finding of fact recorded by the authorities by the writ Court. Interference can only be made in the above circumstance or in a case where there is procedural defect in the inquiry. Nothing has been brought in the notice of the Court that there was any procedural irregularity. Therefore, i find that there is no illegality in the order impugned so far it relates to the award of adverse entry to the petitioner and prayer to that effect is rejected. ( 7 ) SO far as the second order with regard to sanction of leave without pay is concerned in this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authority should have considered his case for grant of medical leave. In view of the U. P. fundamental Rules 81-B (2) which provides that a government servant is entitled leave for 12 month in whole service and that aspect has neither been considered by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority nor revisional authority. The relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh fundamental Rules 81-B (2) is quoted below:-81-B (2) Leave on medical certificate- (i)A government servant to whom these rules apply may be granted leave on medical certificate not exceeding twelve months in all during his entire service. Such leave shall be given only on production of a certificate for such medical authority as the Governor may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf and for a period not exceeding that recommended by such medical authority. Such leave shall be given only on production of a certificate for such medical authority as the Governor may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf and for a period not exceeding that recommended by such medical authority. Provides that when the maximum period of twelve months is exhausted, further leave on medical certificate not exceeding six months in all during entire service may be granted, in exceptional cases on the recommendations of a medical board. Provided further that in all cases in which ( 8 ) GOVERNMENT servants may have before the date of application of these rules to them availed of leave on medical certificate under Fundamental rule 81-B and Subsidiary Rules 157 or 157-A, as the case may be, the period of such leave availed of, under Fundamental Rule 81-B and subsidiary Rule 157-A, as the case may be, and half the period of such leave availed of under Subsidiary Rule 157, shall be taken into account in calculating the leave due to them under this Rule. from the perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a government servant is entitled medical leave on medical certificate not exceeding twelve months in all during his entire service provided medical certificate is issued by such medical authority who has been authorised in this regard by the Honble Governor. So far as the case of the petitioner is concerned he has produced the medical certificate of competent authority and its genuineness has ever been doubted on the contrary the enquiry officer after placing his reliance on the medical certificate has recommended for grant of leave. There is nothing on the record where it is said that medical certificates were not issued by the competent authority or forged and none of the authority has considered it seriously and passed order for sanction of leave without pay. ( 9 ) ALTHOUGH the power of the disciplinary authority absolute so far it relates to the award of punishment is concerned and the report of the enquiry officer is not binding on him but simultaneously it has to be seen whether the report of enquiry officer has been ignored on cogent ground or not. If there are grounds to defer from the report of the enquiry officer then after recording the reasons disciplinary authority may pass a fresh order for holding re-enquiry or on that basis may award the punishment. If there are grounds to defer from the report of the enquiry officer then after recording the reasons disciplinary authority may pass a fresh order for holding re-enquiry or on that basis may award the punishment. So far as the present case is concerned as has been discussed above, there was nothing before the disciplinary authority on which his finding can be based. So far as the petitioners negligent attitude not joining the service in time is concerned for that award the department had already awarded adverse entry and on that basis the second punishment is not permissible in the eye of law which is the medical leave without pay. Had there been any material before the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that the services were forged or were not believable in that case he could have passed the different orders otherwise he was found to consider his application for leave on the basis of the medical certificate in consonance with the fundamental rule 81b-2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has challenging the order dated 5. 11. 99 by which he was sanctioned leave without pay and the orders dated 10/11. 7. 2000 and 25. 1. 2002 appellate and revisional order are quashed to the extent ( 10 ) THAT the competent authority i. e. the disciplinary authority may consider afresh the petitioners leave application for grant of medical leave in view of the observations made in the judgment in accordance with law within a period of three months. However, the disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to grant medical leave for the period of entire absence which is less than 12 months or according to the length of the pending service considering this fact he has availed some leave or he may reduce the period according to his discretion but as has been directed on the basis of valid medical certificates his case may be reconsidered. The petition is partly allowed. .