JUDGMENT AND ORDER T. Vaiphei, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25-5-2012 issued by the Inspector of Schools, Dibrugarh District (respondent 3) to the extent that it denied him of his pay for the period of his absence, which should not be treated as the period spent on duty even though he has been reinstated to his former post. 2. The facts for disposal of the writ petition are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Hindi teacher of Naharkatia New High School (Provincialized). The case of the petitioner is that he was absent from school from 15-9-2007 to 17-3-2010 as he was under medical treatment as a psychiatric patient. The respondent No. 3 allowed him to resume his duty by his order dated 30-3-2010 after availing leave on medical ground. He resumed his duty on 1-4-2010. However, the respondent No. 3 issued the order dated 14-7-2010 withdrawing the said order dated 30-3-2010. This prompted him to move WP(C) No. 6365/2011 for quashing the order dated 14-7-2010, but a departmental enquiry was initiated against him in the meantime. The departmental proceedings were held against him for the following charges: 1. He has been absent from his duty in the School since 15th Sep/2007 till date: he was therefore charged with the offence of violating/polluting the academic atmosphere. 2. As he has been in an unauthorised leave since 15th Sept/2012 for prolonged period, he was deemed to be guilty of non-devotion to duty. 3. He was charged with offences involving in Police case bearing Case No. 78/07 U/s 420/468/473 IPC at Naharkatia Police Station. The O/C of the case submitted CS of the case vide CS No. 116/08 Dated 31st Dec/2008 showing him as absconder. 3. The departmental enquiry culminated in the impugned order by reinstating him to his post but by holding that he would not be entitled to pay for the period of his absence and that the period of his absence from duty was to be treated only for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not to be treated as the period spent on duty. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of by this Court by observing that the petitioner should resume his duty forthwith and might avail of legal remedy available to him for denial of the back wages. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of by this Court by observing that the petitioner should resume his duty forthwith and might avail of legal remedy available to him for denial of the back wages. The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to salary from 15-9-2007 to 30-3-2010 by leave on medical ground and also for the period from 1-4-2010 to 30-8-2012 during which he was partly allowed to do his duty, but was subsequently abruptly withdrawn without any rhyme or reason. It is under the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner is filing this writ petition for appropriate relief. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the State-respondents, who have filed their affidavit-in-opposition through the Director of Secondary Education, Assam (respondent 2). The stance taken by the answering respondent is that the order dated 30-3-2010 had to be withdrawn by the order dated 1-4-2010 inasmuch as the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, when so scrutinised, was not recommended or certified by the Medical Board, which is the competent authority for grant of special disability leave. It is also the case of the answering respondent that special leave disability allowed under the special disability leave is for a maximum period of 24 months in respect of one disability whereas the total period of leave claimed by him is 2 years and 6 months. The respondent No. 3 was not satisfied with the show cause given by the petitioner where after he was asked to appear in the hearing, which was scheduled for 15-5-12 along with the supporting documents, but he remained absent by making false pretext. Moreover, the petitioner never submitted a certified copy of the GR Case No. 1503/2007 corresponding to Nahakatia PS Case No. 78/2007 U/s 420/468/471 IPC. The Investigating Officer of the case had submitted the charge sheet in connection with the aforesaid criminal case. The salary of the petitioner was shown to be forfeited as per the rules and the petitioner is not entitled to back wages. He was fairly treated by reinstating him to his former post, but the salary for the period of his unauthorised absence from duty from 15-9-2007 to 31-5-2012 cannot be given to him as he has no such credit leave to his account. He was fairly treated by reinstating him to his former post, but the salary for the period of his unauthorised absence from duty from 15-9-2007 to 31-5-2012 cannot be given to him as he has no such credit leave to his account. The departmental enquiry against the petitioner was held in accordance with the provision of the rules: there is absolutely no ground for interference by this Court. These are the principal contentions of the answering respondents. 5. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties. I have also given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by Mr. G.P. Bhowmick, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. U.K. Goswamy, the learned standing counsel for the Secondary Department appearing for the respondent authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the genuineness of the medical fitness certificate dated 17-3-2010 issued by the Department of Psychiatry, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh certifying that the petitioner was treated as a psychiatric patient from 26-9-2007 to 17-3-2010, is not disputed by the respondent authorities, his entitlement to special disability leave for 24 months and the remaining period as leave in the category of Leave not due" as provided for under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 ("the Leave Rules") cannot be denied to him. Consequently, submits the learned counsel, the impugned order to the extent that it denies the salary of the petitioner for the period in question is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the stance taken by the respondent authorities that he is not entitled to full back wages on the ground that his name was shown as absconder in the charge sheet, is without any authority of law and is rather irrational. Moreover, submits the learned counsel, the enquiry was concluded and punishment imposed without granting him reasonable opportunity of hearing: He, therefore, argues that the respondents should be asked to release forthwith his back wages for the period of his absence from school by duly applying the provisions of special disability leave and leave not due. On the other hand, Mr. U.K. Goswamy, the learned standing counsel, supports the impugned order and submits that the interference of this Court with the impugned order is not called for. On the other hand, Mr. U.K. Goswamy, the learned standing counsel, supports the impugned order and submits that the interference of this Court with the impugned order is not called for. He argues that in the absence of certificate duly issued by the State Medical Board, Assam which is the competent authority, neither "special disability leave" nor "leave not due" cannot be extended to the petitioner. Contending that the writ petition has no merit, he urges this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The petitioner is obviously not satisfied with his reinstatement to service: he wants more. At this stage, it may be noted that there is no question of reinstating him to his service as he had never been ousted from service nor had he been placed under suspension before issuing the impugned order. Since the pleaded case of the petitioner is that he never avoided attending the hearing on 15-5-2010 and that he had applied for adjourning the hearing vide his letter dated 17-4-2012 as WP(C) No. 6365/11 filed before this Court was pending, but no further intimation was given to him, it is for the respondents to show that his application for stay was duly considered and rejected and the petitioner was duly intimated to appear on the next date of hearing fixed by him. This onus is not discharged by them. Treating the period of absence of the petitioner as not spent on duty resulting in the denial of salary for about two or more is a penalty which can be imposed only after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry so held. The petitioner should be given an opportunity to establish that his absence from duty was due to circumstances beyond his control and that the entire period of his absence can be dealt with by applying the principles of special disability leave and no leave due under the provisions of the Leave Rules so that he may not be deprived of salary benefits due to him during his illness. Prima facie, once the genuineness of the illness of the petitioner is not questioned by the respondents, the fact that the absence of certificate issued by the State Medical Board cannot be a good justification for rejecting the medical leave admissible to him. Prima facie, once the genuineness of the illness of the petitioner is not questioned by the respondents, the fact that the absence of certificate issued by the State Medical Board cannot be a good justification for rejecting the medical leave admissible to him. Anyway, this is also a matter to be examined by the enquiry officer in the course of conducting the enquiry by allowing the petitioner to present his case. The concept of "unauthorised absence" and the manner in which an enquiry concerning such absence has been explained by the Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. UOI and others, (2012) 3 SCC 178 in the following manner: "16. In the case of the appellant referring to unauthorised absence the disciplinary authority alleged that he failed to maintain devotion to duty and his behaviour was unbecoming of a Government servant. The question whether "unauthorised absence from duty" amounts to failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant cannot be decided without deciding the question whether absence is wilful or because of compelling circumstances. 17. If the absence is the result of compelling circumstances under which it was not possible to report or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilful. Absence from duty without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorised absence, but it does not always mean wilful. There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 18. In a departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is wilful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct." 7. Even after the enquiry is over and a finding of guilt is recorded against the petitioner also, he has, and should have been given, the right to be heard on the penalty to be inflicted upon him. This was apparently not done. This is also a part of the concept of "reasonable opportunity of hearing" to which a delinquent official is entitled. This was apparently not done. This is also a part of the concept of "reasonable opportunity of hearing" to which a delinquent official is entitled. If any authority is needed, I may cite the decision of the Apex Court in State of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 11 SCC 278 . This is what the Apex Court said: "21. This Court approved the view taken by the High Court and observed: (Manche Gowda case AIR 1964 SC 506 : (1964) 4 SCR 540 , AIR pp. 509-10, para 7) "7. Under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, as interpreted by this Court, a Government servant must have a reasonable opportunity not only to prove that he is not guilty of the charges levelled against him, but also to establish that the punishment proposed to be imposed is either not called for or excessive. The said opportunity is to be a reasonable opportunity and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government servant must be told of the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action: see the decision of this Court in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit AIR 1963 SC 1612 . If the grounds are not given in the notice, it would be well nigh impossible for him to predicate what is operating on the mind of the authority concerned in proposing a particular punishment: he would not be in a position to explain why he does not deserve any punishment at all or that the punishment proposed is excessive. If the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record of a Government servant and that was not disclosed in the notice, it would mean that the main reason for the proposed punishment was withheld from the knowledge of the Government servant. It would be no answer to suggest that every Government servant must have had knowledge of the fact that his past record would necessarily be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him; nor would it be an adequate answer to say that he knew as a matter of fact that the earlier punishments were imposed on him or that he knew of his past record. This contention misses the real point, namely, that what the Government servant is entitled to is not the knowledge of certain facts but the fact that those facts will be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him. It is not possible for him to know what period of his past record or what acts or omissions of his in a particular period would be considered. If that fact was brought to his notice, he might explain that he had no knowledge of the remarks of his superior officers, that he had adequate explanation to offer for the alleged remarks or that his conduct subsequent to the remarks had been exemplary or at any rate approved by the superior officers. Even if the authority concerned took into consideration only the facts for which he was punished, it would be open to him to put forward before the said authority many mitigating circumstances or some other explanation why those punishments were given to him or that subsequent to the punishments he had served to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned till the time of the present enquiry. He may have many other explanations. The point is not whether his explanation would be acceptable, but whether he has been given an opportunity to give his explanation. We cannot accept the doctrine of 'presumptive knowledge' or that of 'purposeless enquiry', as their acceptance will be subversive of the principle of 'reasonable opportunity'. We, therefore, hold that it is incumbent upon the authority to give the Government servant at the second stage reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment and if the proposed punishment is also based on his previous punishments or his previous bad record, this should be included in the second notice so that he may be able to give an explanation." The proposition laid down in the above-noted judgment represents one of the basic canons of justice that no one can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting any person can be passed by a public authority without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself or represent his cause. "22. "22. As a general rule, an authority entrusted with the task of deciding lis between the parties or empowered to make an order which prejudicially affects the rights of any individual or visits him with civil consequences is duty-bound to act in consonance with the basic rules of natural justice including the one that material sought to be used against the person concerned must be disclosed to him and he should be given an opportunity to explain his position. This unwritten right of hearing is fundamental to a just decision, which forms an integral part of the concept of rule of law. This right has its roots in the notion of fair procedure. It draws the attention of the authority concerned to the imperative necessity of not overlooking the cause which may be shown by the other side before coming to its decision. 23. When it comes to taking of disciplinary action against a delinquent employee, the employer is not only required to make the employee aware of the specific imputations of misconduct but also to disclose the material sought to be used against him and give him a reasonable opportunity of explaining his position or defending himself. If the employer uses some material adverse to the employee about which the latter is not given notice, the final decision gets vitiated on the ground of the violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Even if there are no statutory rules which regulate holding of disciplinary enquiry against a delinquent employee, the employer is duty-bound to act in consonance with the rules of natural justice - U.P. Warehousing Corpn. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee (1980) 3 SCC 459 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 453. 24. However, every violation of the rules of natural justice may not be sufficient for invalidating the action taken by the competent authority/employer and the Court may refuse to interfere if it is convinced that such violation has not caused prejudice to the affected person/employee." 8. In my judgment, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority in the manner in which the enquiry has been conducted against him. He was not afforded an opportunity to establish that his absence from duty was wilful warranting a punishment by the disciplinary authority. He was also not given an opportunity to show that he is entitled to medical leave under the extant rules. He was not afforded an opportunity to establish that his absence from duty was wilful warranting a punishment by the disciplinary authority. He was also not given an opportunity to show that he is entitled to medical leave under the extant rules. This is not a case in which the petitioner admitted to the charges levelled against him. No punishment without reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent official. This calls for the interference of this Court. 9. For the afore-mentioned reasons, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-5-2012 (Annexure-K), in so far as it treated the period of absence of the petitioner on two spells i.e. from 15-9-2007 to 30-3-2010 and from 1-4-2010 to 30-8-2012 as not spent on duty and of denying him of his pay and allowances for those periods is concerned, is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to pay the salary of the petitioner due for those two periods within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is, however, made clear that it is open to the respondent authorities, without placing him under suspension, to hold fresh enquiry as to whether the absence of the petitioner from duty for the particular periods in question is wilful or not and of the consequential action to be taken by them thereafter by giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. If fresh enquiry as suggested above is being held, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.