ORDER: 1. The petitioner, an employee of the respondent bank, filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the second respondent in treating 103 days of ‘sick leave’ as ‘extraordinary leave’ as illegal and arbitrary. He has sought a consequential direction to the respondent bank to deduct 103 days of his absence from the pool of the ‘sick leave’ rather than treating it as extraordinary leave. 2. The petitioner, having been appointed a clerk-cum-typist on 02.05.1977 in the respondent bank, has been working since September 2001 in the first respondent branch as a Special Assistant. Beginning with May 2005 till July 2007, owing to his occasional illness, the petitioner went on sick leave on different spells ranging from four days to 27 days. Having availed himself of 126 days of sick leave, the petitioner was sanctioned by the authorities 103 days leave in the said category. 3. Explaining why the petitioner had to go on sick leave on each occasion, the petitioner has placed on record that on every occasion when he reported back to duty, he submitted leave applications duly supported by medical certificates. Though the leave was duly sanctioned by the competent authority, all of a sudden, in June 2007 the respondent bank did not pay salary to the petitioner without assigning any reason. When the petitioner approached the Branch Manager inquiring about the non-payment of salary, he was served with a letter, dated 30.06.2007, stating that the sick leave granted earlier was treated as unauthorised absence and accordingly no salary was paid. 4. The petitioner, in response to the letter, dated 30.06.2007 issued by the first respondent, submitted a representation/explanation on 27.07.2007 stating that the sick leave was granted after the competent authority had been satisfied of the nature of illness the petitioner had suffered from on different occasions; as such, the question of reopening it by treating the periods of absence as unauthorised is totally unsustainable. When no response was forthcoming from the first respondent, the petitioner was said to have been constrained to submit another representation, dated 31.08.2007 to the second respondent. Later, the second representation too having met the same fate the first representation did, the petitioner once again submitted a representation, dated 25.09.2007 to the third respondent, the General Manager (Operations), Hyderabad. Despite his numerous representations, when the authorities have remained unmoved, the petitioner approached this Court. 5. Later, the second representation too having met the same fate the first representation did, the petitioner once again submitted a representation, dated 25.09.2007 to the third respondent, the General Manager (Operations), Hyderabad. Despite his numerous representations, when the authorities have remained unmoved, the petitioner approached this Court. 5. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel has submitted that once leave was duly sanctioned, the authorities have no power to cancel the sanctioned leave, much less treat it as unauthorised absence. Referring to the regulations governing the employees of the respondent bank, the learned counsel contends that an act of unauthorised absence being a major misconduct, converting properly sanctioned leave to unauthorised absence is fraught with deleterious consequences. Ipso facto, the authorities are obligated to put the petitioner on notice before initiating any such action. The learned counsel has also pointed out that on every occasion he has applied for leave and later got it sanctioned on the strength of the medical certificates he has produced. 6. As the petitioner went on making representations, it is contended, the second respondent issued proceedings, dated 11.10.2007, treating the sick leave for different periods, amounting to 103 days, as extraordinary leave. When the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 22.10.2007, seeking payment of arrears of salary with interest, restoring the sanctioned sick leave, the authorities have once again reaffirmed their stand by issuing proceedings, dated 28.11.2007. 7. To accentuate the treatment meted out to the petitioner by the respondent authorities, the learned counsel has laid stress on the fact that when the petitioner sought voluntary retirement through application dated 02.08.2007, the authorities did not act on it. When enquired, he was told by the authorities that the application could not be traced. Thus the learned counsel underlines that the authorities have been making every effort to victimise the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 8. Per contra, the learned standing counsel, in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged this court to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 8. Per contra, the learned standing counsel, in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent bank, has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. The learned standing counsel has contended that initially the authorities sanctioned sick leave in anticipation of the petitioner submitting proper medical certificate, but later they realised that the leave applications of the petitioner had not been supported by any such medical certificates as required under rules. Referring to the genesis of the issue, the learned standing counsel states that on 25.06.2007, the Assistant General Manager heading the Warangal region inspected the branch and found that the sick leave was debited without production of proper medical certificates. Accordingly, he is said to have advised the Branch Manager not to finalise the sanctioning of leave without his permission until further orders, apart from giving a direction to withhold the payment of the petitioner’s salary for the month of June, 2007 till the settling of petitioner’s leave by the Regional Office. 9. The learned standing counsel contends that the Assistant General Manager, being a superior officer, has got every right to rectify the defects committed by the Branch Manager. Referring to the issue of voluntary retirement, the learned standing counsel has denied the allegations made by the petitioner that his application was ignored. On the contrary, contends the learned standing counsel, the petitioner was made to retire under V.R.S. Based on the interim direction of this court, dated 16.04.2008, the terminal benefits have also been released. With regard to the sanctioned leave, the learned standing counsel has contended that the petitioner could furnish a proper medical certificate only for 23 days from 02.07.2007 to 24.07.2007. He has further contended that for all other days of his absence, the petitioner has not submitted any ‘valid medical certificate’. According to the learned standing counsel, since the petitioner has failed to produce what are said to be valid medical certificates, 103 days of his absence was debited to his ordinary leave account. He has further contended that for all other days of his absence, the petitioner has not submitted any ‘valid medical certificate’. According to the learned standing counsel, since the petitioner has failed to produce what are said to be valid medical certificates, 103 days of his absence was debited to his ordinary leave account. Countering the allegation that the petitioner was not put on notice before converting the sick leave into ordinary leave, the learned standing counsel has contended that through proceedings dated 11.10.2007 the petitioner was communicated all the grounds therefor in an elaborate manner; as such, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in that regard. Eventually, the learned standing counsel has stated that, as on the date of his leaving the service on superannuation, the petitioner had ordinary leave of 137 days to his credit after deducting 103 days. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted to have the leave encashment for 137 days. Eventually the learned standing counsel has also taken a technical plea that the petitioner being an award-staff has got an efficacious alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 10. Summing up his submissions the learned standing counsel has stated that there is every justification on the part of the respondent authorities in treating the sick leave of the petitioner as ordinary leave in the absence of valid medical certificates and that the decision of the authorities does not call for any interference. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank, apart from perusing the record. 12. It may be stated without any fear of contradiction that there is not much factual controversy involved in this issue. What falls for consideration is whether the petitioner has produced a valid medical certificate in support of his absence on the ground of being ill. The respondents having not specifically denied the submission of the medical certificates along with the leave letters or thereafter, this court was initially perplexed as to what the real nature of dispute was. On further probing, the court has gathered from the learned standing counsel that instead of submitting the medical certificates from allopathic doctors, the petitioner has produced the said certificates issued by a homoeopathic doctor. 13. On further probing, the court has gathered from the learned standing counsel that instead of submitting the medical certificates from allopathic doctors, the petitioner has produced the said certificates issued by a homoeopathic doctor. 13. It is the contention of the learned standing counsel that as per the regulations governing the employees of the respondent bank, to have the sick leaves sanctioned, an employee is required to produce ‘sick certificates’ issued by the registered medical practitioners, who are, in the opinion of the respondent bank, only the allopathic doctors. When a specific question was put to the learned standing counsel whether the bank could produce any such regulation or material to show that a registered medical practitioner means only the allopathic doctor and that the medical certificate is required to be given only by an allopathic doctor, the learned standing counsel could not commit himself to giving any such undertaking of producing any relevant material in that regard. 14. Referring to the Bank Regulations, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Chapter-4, which deals with leave rules. Regulation No.9 is with reference to the refusal of leave and it is as follows: “The instructions pertaining to the procedure to be followed in cases of unauthorised absence have been reiterated with the expectation that all the Controlling Authorities/Branch Managers/Heads of Departments will follow them meticulously. a) The Branch Manager should ensure issuance of First Notice and Second Notice at prescribed intervals as detailed above. The Controlling Authority should ensure that the Branches are following the correct procedure. After serving the Second Notice by the Branch, the responsibility of serving ‘Order of the Competent Authority” along with covering Letter ( as per annexures IV & III respectively)/issuance of paper notification lies with the Controlling Authority till the case is disposed off. b) If the employee does not report in response to the Second Notice within the prescribed period of 30 days, the Competent Authority should serve the “Order of the Competent Authority” along with its Covering Letter on the employee declaring the employee as voluntarily ceased to be in service with effect from the expiry of the prescribed notice period mentioned in the Second Notice. A copy of the same should be sent to the parent Branch to which the employee belongs. A copy of the same should be sent to the parent Branch to which the employee belongs. c) In case the “Order of the Competent Authority” along with Covering Letter is returned undelivered, paper notification (on the lines of Covering Letter (i.e., annexure-III) should be issued in a local newspaper in a language understandable to the employee concerned.” 15. Normally, the leave applied for by an employee shall be sanctioned by the Management, provided all other requirements of leave rules are complied with. In case any leave is refused, the employee concerned must be informed in writing, specifying therein the reasons for such refusal. In the present instance, evidently, at the very beginning, the leave was sanctioned by the authorities. Later, the petitioner came to know of the change of mind of the Management regarding his sick leave when he was not paid salary for a particular month. On the petitioner’s further probing of the issue, the respondent Branch Manager served on him a communication to the effect that since the sick leave was reconverted to ordinary leave, the salary could not be paid. Thus, without much cogitation, it can be stated that either by way of refusal of leave or by way of conversion of the sanctioned leave, the respondent authorities have not put the petitioner on notice at any point of time, until the petitioner himself came to know of the belated refusal of the authorities. Thus, there is a clear infraction of the regulation concerning the refusal of leave; and this infraction goes to the root of the matter. 16. Considering the nature of medical certificate produced by the petitioner, this Court finds an important, as well as interesting, aspect whether the employees in government establishments or public sector undertakings, the respondent bank being one, are required to produce medical certificates issued only by the allopathic doctors, to the exclusion of all other doctors practicing alternative branches of medicine. 17. In this regard, insofar as the allopathic doctors are concerned, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, provides for the constitution or reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, and the maintenance of the Medical Register. 17. In this regard, insofar as the allopathic doctors are concerned, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, provides for the constitution or reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, and the maintenance of the Medical Register. In fact, once an allopathic doctor with a basic qualification of M.B.B.S, registers himself with MCI, he gets certain privileges under Section 27 of the said Act, which is as follows: “Privileges of Persons who are Enrolled on the Indian Medical Register: Subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down in this Act, regarding medical practice by persons possessing certain recognised medical qualifications, every person whose name is for the time being borne on the Indian Medical Register shall be entitled according to his qualifications to practice as a medical practitioner in any part of India and to recover in due course of law in respect of such practice any expenses, charges in respect of medicaments or other appliances, or any fees to which he may be entitled.” 18. So long as the name of the medical practitioner is reflected in the register maintained by the Medical Council of India, in terms of the MCI Regulations, 2000, the said medical practitioner can be called a Registered Medical Practitioner (R.M.P). 19. As for the alternative medicines, the parliament has also brought out an enactment namely Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, an enactment analogous to the Indian Medical Council of Act, to regulate the activities of the practitioners of that branch of medicine. In fact, under the said enactment as well, there is a particular provision, which is in pari materia with Section 27 of the Indian Council Act. In fact, Section 26 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 speaks of the privileges of persons, who are enrolled under the Central Registration of Homeopathy, and it is as follows: “26. In fact, under the said enactment as well, there is a particular provision, which is in pari materia with Section 27 of the Indian Council Act. In fact, Section 26 of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 speaks of the privileges of persons, who are enrolled under the Central Registration of Homeopathy, and it is as follows: “26. (1) Subject to the conditions and restrictions laid down in this Act regarding practice of Homoeopathy by persons possessing certain recognized medical qualifications, every person whose name is for the time being borne on Part I of the Central Register of Homoeopathy shall be entitled according to his qualifications to practice Homoeopathy in any part of India and to recover in due course of law in respect of such practice any expenses, charges in respect of such practice any expenses, charges in respect of medicaments of other appliances or any fees to which he may be entitled.” 20. A perusal of the above provisions would amply indicate that the privileges that have been extended in both categories are identical in nature. As such, in the absence of any statutory limitation imposed in accepting the medical certificates issued by registered medical practitioners of Homeopathy, it cannot be said that the respondent bank has acted well within its powers in terms of the regulations governing its employees to reject the sick leave applications on a simple premise that the medical certificates were not issued by an allopathic doctor. 21. Before parting with the issue, it may be apposite to refer to a decision of this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in Dr. Mohd. Abdul Wahab v. State of A.P. through its Secretary Transport, Roads and Buildings and ors (2001 (2) ALT, 105). 22. In the said case, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.25, Transport, Roads and Building (Tr. II), dated 16.02.1992, declaring that the Registered Medical Practitioners possessing the degree (MBBS) in allopathy or any equivalent qualification of any University in India alone are empowered to issue Medical Certificates for the purpose of obtaining the learner’s licence and conductor’s licence. The petitioner therein, who is an RMP in Homoeopathy, questioned the validity of the above G.O before this Court. The petitioner therein, who is an RMP in Homoeopathy, questioned the validity of the above G.O before this Court. In that context, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that Homoeo and Unani Registered Medical Practitioners have no special qualification or any study in such course to issue physical fitness certificates i.e., with regard to the applicants suffering from other ailments like hypertension, epilepsy, vision and/or colour blindness etc. Having held thus, this Court has upheld the said G.O. 23. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, in the first place the respondent bank has not produced any regulation or administrative instruction invalidating the medical certificates issued by the registered medical practitioners of the alternative branches of medicine. On the other hand, declaring general fitness on examination of a supposedly healthy person is different from treating a patient of general maladies and ailments. No particular branch of medicine can arrogate to itself the sole privilege of exclusive expertise. Thus, a person cannot be curtailed from taking recourse to alternative medicine. In such an event, if a person avails himself of treatment of any branch of alternative medicine such as ayurveda or homoeopathy, putatively holistic, he can only be expected to produce certificate issued by that treating doctor alone. As such, in my considered opinion, the stand of the respondent bank cannot be sustained to the effect that only of Medical Certificate issued by a Registered Medical Practitioner in allopathy should be taken into account but not other certificates. 24. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pending the Writ Petition, the petitioner got superannuated and retired from service. As such, now it is an issue of paying the difference of amounts by reconverting the ordinary leave to that of medical leave as had been done originally. 25. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed by declaring the proceedings in F.No.R.I./GR.I/1372 dated 11.10.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, as well as those issued on 28.11.2007, as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the respondent authorities are directed to reconvert the ordinary leave of 103 days to sick leave and accordingly release the salary that has been withheld earlier, apart from settling other benefits, if any, in favour of the petitioner. No order as to costs. 26. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.