JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Office Order bearing No.F.2(II)/Estt/PL/AD-2008/29517-23 dated 22.01.2015, Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the service w.e.f. 12.07.2013, has been challenged. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner was engaged as the permanent labourer under the Divisional Forest Officer, Ambassa Forest Division by the Office Order under No.F.24(3)/AD-06/Estt./DRW/ 26838-59 dated 18.11.2008, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition. The petitioner was discharging his duties without any blemish till 11.07.2013. According to the petitioner, he fell suddenly ill and was prevented to attend the duties since 12.07.2013 till 25.02.2014. On the day of resumption of his duties, he filed the medical certificates of illness and fitness together, but the respondents were not satisfied. They issued a show-cause notice on 22.03.2014, Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents. 4. In the said show-cause notice, the petitioner was asked to explain the long unauthorized absence without any information or prior permission from the authority. As the petitioner did not give any information in respect of his absence, his explanation was asked for within a period of three days, else the petitioner was cautioned that the action under law would be taken for such gross dereliction of duties. 5. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being not so educated did not retain any copy of the reply, but the reply was filed by the petitioner. The reminder was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer who issued the show-cause notice dated 22.03.2014 on 22.09.2014, Annexure-R/2 to the reply, stating that at the time of reporting the duty, the petitioner had given a joining report alongwith the prayer for leave in the plain paper with medical certificates of illness and fitness. The prayer was not proper as per the process. There is prescribed form for prayer or extension of leave. The Divisional Forest Officer has categorically observed that in respect of the show-cause dated 22.03.2014, there was no report [the reply] from the petitioner. Instead the petitioner had addressed a letter stating that he had not received the payment after joining the duty on 26.03.2014. There is prescribed form for prayer or extension of leave. The Divisional Forest Officer has categorically observed that in respect of the show-cause dated 22.03.2014, there was no report [the reply] from the petitioner. Instead the petitioner had addressed a letter stating that he had not received the payment after joining the duty on 26.03.2014. Again the petitioner was directed to explain his position to the Divisional Forest Officer within three days from the date of the receipt of that letter. As the medical certificates as produced by the petitioner were not ‘believable’, the report was asked from the Standing Medical Board whether the leave of the petitioner can be held justified or not. The petitioner filed the reply and on purported consideration of the said reply, the petitioner was dismissed from the service under the Permanent Labourers (Recruitment & Condition of Service) Rules, 1990. Sub-Rule 9(b) of the said Rules reads as under: “A permanent labourer who remain absent continuously without authority for more than 30 days shall be liable to automatic termination from the service.” Thus, the respondents have contended that the termination order passed by the authority is just, legal and proper. 6. In para-7 of the reply, filed by the respondents, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner submitted application for granting him admissible leave for his illness which is supported by the medical certificates. But the said leave from the period from 12.07.2013 to 25.02.2014 was never granted as the respondents did not rely on the medical certificates produced by the petitioner. The respondents made reference dated 25.09.2014 to the Chairman, Standing Medical Board. In the report dated 16.12.2014 as submitted by the Standing Medical Board has observed that the period of leave for 229 days from 12.07.2013 to 25.02.2014 was not justified. In para-8 of the reply, the respondents has averred as under: “It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was absented himself from 23.6.2010 to 31.10.2010 and that period of unauthorized absent was regularized with a sympathetic attitude keeping in view that he would improve and be regular in discharge of his official duties in future.” 7. According to the respondents, the petitioner had repeated the same act of absenting himself without prior permission or without sanction of the leave. According to the respondents, the petitioner had repeated the same act of absenting himself without prior permission or without sanction of the leave. As the petitioner does not come under the purview of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, his service is wholly controlled by the said Rules, 1990 and as such the petitioner was terminated in terms thereof, without any stigma. 8. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel having referred to the Rule 18(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986 has contended that the Standing Medical Board to which the matter was referred for verification, did not call the petitioner to examine him physically. Rule 18(3) of the Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986 provides as under: “(3) The authority competent to grant leave may, at its discretion secure a second medical opinion by requesting a Government Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon or staff Surgeon, to have the applicant medically examined on the earliest possible date.” 9. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has submitted that it was not for the second medical opinion about the illness of the petitioner but it was sent whether the medical certificates as produced by the petitioner can be relied on or the long absence was required for recuperation of the petitioner from illness or not. The Standing Medical Board after verification of the certificates had opined that the said absence was not at all required for the kind of illness the petitioner had suffered during the period of absence. According to Mr. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA, in terms of the Rule 9B, hardly any decision from the competent authority is required. It provides that mere absence beyond 30 days would render the service of such person, absenting from the duty, automatically terminated and for this no formal order even is required to be passed. 10. However, Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously objected to the said submission contending that this provision is always subjected to the principles of natural justice, meaning the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to explain how he was prevented from attending the duties and the authority has a duty to look into the reasons and only thereafter pass the appropriate order. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when someone is prevented by illness, a mechanical approach cannot be taken by the competent authority. 11. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when someone is prevented by illness, a mechanical approach cannot be taken by the competent authority. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinized the records so produced in the writ petition and the reply, this court is of the view that on the basis of the medical certificates which are not the prescriptions, the Standing Medical Board could not have come to such a decision. It should have been made a thorough inquiry in respect of illness and intervention and should have asked the petitioner to be present during such verification. This is not the universal rule but since this court has appreciated the medical certificates which are bereft of better particulars, it has taken a view that the further medical records such as the prescriptions, medical advice, Clinical reports etc. should have been asked for consideration by the concerned Medical Board. In order to facilitate the said examination by the Medical Board, this court interfered with the impugned order and the said order stands quashed but no order of the reinstatement would be passed by this court. The competent authority shall request the Standing Medical Board to give the petitioner an opportunity to produce all the medical records in respect of his illness with the copies of the certificates that he had produced to the competent authority and thereafter the Medical Board shall send a fresh report in this regard giving a definite opinion whether for such illness, such long period of absence was required or during that long period the petitioner was really prevented by the illness or not. After receipt of the opinion of the Medical Board, the competent authority shall take a fresh exercise in this regard and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. Considering the nature of service, the petitioner was engaged in, the respondents may take a lenient view if permissible in view of the medical opinion from the Standing Medical Board as contemplated. If it is found that the petitioner was really prevented by the illness, the competent authority shall take a call whether the petitioner shall get the back wages or not. If it is found that the petitioner was really prevented by the illness, the competent authority shall take a call whether the petitioner shall get the back wages or not. For this purpose, if the competent authority is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by the illness, Rule 9(b) can be waived by the competent authority as when a person is prevented by the illness, it cannot be expected from him that he would join the duty during the illness. But this court has taken a very serious note that the petitioner did not inform the competent authority about his illness within the earliest occasion. 12. Be that as it may, all aspects of the matter be considered afresh by the competent authority having received the medical opinion from the Standing Medical Board and such exercise shall be completed within a period of 30(thirty) days from the day when a copy of this order be furnished by the petitioner to the appointing authority, the respondent No.3 in this petition. In terms of the observation as made above, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost. A copy of the judgment be supplied to Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents for doing the needful.