JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The petitioner who is working as the Senior Manager on CDC in the office of the DGM, Electrical Division, Teliamura, District-Khowai, Tripura has challenged the office order dated 26.09.2016 [part of Annexure-3 collectively] whereby the absence of the petitioner from 06.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 and 13.09.2015 to 03.10.2015 has been treated as the “Dies-non” without break in service under Rule FR 17. 3. The petitioner has averred that during that period he fell ill and he had duly reported his illness and at the time of resumption of the duties he has submitted the proper application for leave with certificate of illness and certificate of fitness from the registered Medical Practitioner as per the provisions of Tripura State Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1986 which has been adopted by the TSECL, the respondent No.3 herein. But the commuted leave as prayed on medical ground was not granted. The respondent No.3 had referred and sent the petitioner to be examined by the Standing Medical Board, AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. The Standing Medical Board on examination of the petitioner has opined that “after careful examination, it is found that his 38 (thirty eight) days leave w.e.f. 17.07.2015 to 05.08.2015 & 26.08.2015 to 12.09.2015 is justified & other 41 (forty one) days leave w.e.f. 06.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 & 13.09.2015 to 03.10.2015 is not justified.” The said report is available with the writ petition as Annexure-2. The report has been prepared on 06.02.2016 whereas, admittedly, the period of absence started from 06.08.2015 and the end-date was by resumption of duty on 03.10.2015. 4. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this court by referring to the report of the Standing Medical Board [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] that even the medical records of the petitioner as submitted to the respondent No.3 was not considered by the Medical Board, their opinion was entirely based on the physical examination of the petitioner which had taken place on 14.01.2016. For purpose of reference, the procedure that has been followed by the Standing Medical Board, as reflected in their report, is extracted hereunder : “The members of the Standing Medical Board, Government of Tripura, Agartala Government Medical College & G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala, examined Sri Sishu Ranjan Bhadra, Sr. Manager (Elec.) on CDC, Office of the Dy. General Manager, Electrical Division, Teliamura, Khowai Tripura, on 14.01.2016.” Only on the said physical examination, the Standing Medical Board gave their opinion. 5. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel has further submitted that even the medical records, such as the prescription and the medical certificate given by Dr. Partha Bhattacharjee who treated the petitioner was not examined. Even the said doctor was not consulted to arrive at an inference by the Standing Medical Board. It appears from the records that on receipt of the report from the Standing Medical Board, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 27.02.2016 [part of Annexure-3] asking him why the period of absence from 06.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 and 13.09.2015 to 03.10.2015 for 41 (forty one) days together shall not be treated as Dies-non. In view of his absence, it has been proposed that why action under FR-17 shall not be initiated against him for unauthorized absence from the government duty. 6. In reply to the said showcause notice, the petitioner has clearly stated that he was treated by Dr. Partha Bhattacharjee and he submitted the Medical Certificate from the said doctor regarding the status of his health at the time of resumption of his duty. The petitioner has further stated in the said reply dated 01.03.2016 as under : “2. I wonder how could the Medical Board ascertain by medical examination in February 2016 whether I was ill or not 7 months earlier in July 2015. I made enquiries from experts to be informed that science has not yet advanced to the extent of ascertaining today whether one had high B.P. or chest pain 7 months ago. But in the present case it appears that the medical board very casually certified that I was not ill, i.e., I had no hyper tension and Chest pain during 06.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 though I was really ill for the same complaint subsequently in August-September 2015. But in the present case it appears that the medical board very casually certified that I was not ill, i.e., I had no hyper tension and Chest pain during 06.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 though I was really ill for the same complaint subsequently in August-September 2015. I think the matter needs explanation from the Medical Board then only I can submit a proper reply.” However, the respondent No.3 was not satisfied with the requisition and passed the impugned office order dated 26.09.2016 treating the said period as “Dies-non” without break in service within the meaning of FR-17. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this court. The respondent No.3 has filed the reply and controverted the averments of the petitioner by stating that for absence of the petitioner the office had suffered seriously. Since, they did not have full faith on the state of affairs as narrated by the petitioner, the respondents sought the expert opinion in the matter and accordingly, the matter was referred to the Standing Medical Board of the AGMC and GBP Hospital at Agartala. When the respondents received the opinion of the Standing Medical Board, for absence of 41 days from 06.08.2015 to 25.08.2015 and 13.09.2015 to 03.10.2015, they had asked the petitioner to showcause why the action under FR 17 shall not be initiated and thereafter having received his reply, the said period of absence has been declared as “Dies-non”. 8. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the opinion of the expert cannot be substituted by the respondent No.3 and they had bonafide taken the action on the basis of the expert opinion. What has transpired from the records is that there is no departmental proceeding in this matter and the petitioner did not admit the allegation ever. 9. It is really surprising how the Standing Medical Board even without examining the medical records of the petitioner could come to that inference as to whether the petitioner was suffering from any cardiac complaints, requiring him to take rest at home or whether he was in a position to attend the duties or not ? It appears that this is simply a projection of ideas not supported by any scientific inquiry, inasmuch as no document or the report had been furnished to the respondent No.3. It appears that this is simply a projection of ideas not supported by any scientific inquiry, inasmuch as no document or the report had been furnished to the respondent No.3. The respondents at the same time have acted on the said report mechanically, without showing any reason why the medical records as produced by the petitioner had been discarded so unceremoniously. The employer has every right, if he is pushed by the suspicion, to make an enquiry into the matter, but enquiry does not mean a venture designed to draw adverse inference particularly when there is no such basis being made out. This is a case where this court is constrained to observe that the opinion of the Medical Board poorly reflects about their way of functioning and it defies any logic either under science or under prudence of a common man. 10. Having observed thus, this court has no other alternative but to set aside the impugned order dated 26.09.2016 [part of Annexure-3]. Further, the respondent No.3 is directed to regularize the absence of the petitioner on commuted leave on medical ground and to release the pay and allowances, if not paid of that period within a period of 2(two) months from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order. In the result, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.