The appellate remained absent from 17-2-79 to 11-3-79 without applying for leave. He resumed duty on 12-3-79. He produced medical certificate during inquiry. Admittedly he did not apply for leave during his absence. On account of the defects in the inquiry the learned lower Court allowed re-inquiry. First of all the statement of . The appellant was recorded and thereafter the evidence of the prosecution witness was recorded. The (e.i)--dence of some witnesses were recorded in the absence of the appellant on 11-3-79 and his signatures were obtained on them on 13-3-79. Since the evidence was recorded in the absence of the appellant he could not cross--examine them. No opportunity of producing defence was afforded. Since the appellant became absent without applying for leave the learned lowed Court was justified f n according permission for re-inquiry. The appellant has to show and prove the circumstances which prevented him from applying for sick leave during his absence. In this view of the matter there appears to be no Justification to interfere with the order of the learned lower Court.
3. As a result of the observation made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.