Failure to effect service by registered post requires steps for substituted service, and failure to do so means no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding.

This writ application has been filed for quashing the order of dismissal passed on 25.10.1984, contained in Annexure 3' and appellate order affirming the same contained in Annexure 6'.

2. Since this writ application is bound to succeed on a short question, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that from the order contained in Annexure 3', it would appear that notice in the departmental proceeding was not served upon the petitioner. From the order it appears that the notice was sent under registered cover and the same was returned back with the Peon's report that the petitioner was not residing at his village home. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that since the petitioner has left his permanent abode without leaving any address, in that event, the State was helpless and nothing could have been done on behalf of the State for serving the notice upon him.

3. In our view, the submission is fallacious, because it is well settled under general law that if service is not effected either by ordinary mode or by registered post, in that event, steps could have been taken by the State for substituted service, that is, by publication of notice in the newspaper. The provision of Order V Rule 19A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to departmental proceeding, but the principle enumerated therein surely does apply to each and every proceeding. Undisputedly, no step has been taken for substituted service. In view of the aforesaid fact, we have no option but to hold that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding.

4. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the finding of the Inquiring Officer during the course of inquiry, the order of the disciplinary authority, contained in Annexure 3' and the order of the appellate authority, contained in Annexure 6', are hereby quashed.

5. Now it will be open the concerned authority to proceed further in the departmental proceeding in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that his client will appear before the Commandant, respondent no. 4, on or before 30.6.1991, on which day he should file a certified copy of this order before him enclosing the same with a petition. The Commandant in that event shall serve a copy of the charges upon the petitioner and fix a date for holding inquiry either by himself or any other officer, who shall conclude the inquiry within a period fixed by the Commandant-respondent.

7. We may, however, clarify that in case, the petitioner fails to appear before the Officer on or before the aforesaid date, in that event, it will be open to the concerned authority to proceed with the departmental proceeding ex-parte and take a decision on its own merit. In view of the fact that we have quashed the orders, contained in Annexures 3' and 6', it is needless to say that the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of salary from 25.10.1984 till today.

8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed of.