S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, A.C.J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner against the order, contained in Memo No. 2780 dated 19th September, 2000, whereby and whereunder, it has been ordered to recover 40. salary from the petitioner, on the ground that he was unauthorizedly absent during the said period. Further prayer has been made to set aside the order, contained in Memo No. 3014, dated 21st October, 2000, whereby and whereunder, salary of the petitioner for a period of 149 days has been deducted on account of unauthorized absence from service.
(2.) AS the case can be disposed of on short points, it is not necessary to discuss ill the facts, except the relevant one. Admittedly, the petitioner had not attended the duty for about 40 days i.e., from 3rd June, 2000 to 11th July, 2000. With regard to certain other period, I he respondents have also alleged that the petitioner was uanuthorizedly absent from duty for about 149 days, as detailed in letter No. 3014, dated 21st October, 2000.
(3.) SO far as unauthorized absence for a period of 40 days is concerned, the petitioner has pointed out that he sustained leg injury and, therefore, could not attend the duty. With regard to unauthorized absence for 149 days, relating to different period, the petitioner has disputed certain dates.;