( 1 ) IN the present writ petition, the petitioner, mr. Om Pal Singh, has questioned and challenged the vires of Rule 16 including the sub rules of the Delhi Police (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, for short ). He has also impugned the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary Authority and the Appellate authority, pursuant to which he was awarded the punishment of removal from service and the order passed by the Central Administrative tribunal dismissing his original application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a constable in Delhi Police on 1. 8. 1984. It is alleged that he wilfully absented himself from duty w. e. f. 10. 2. 1999. The petitioner did not send any information/medical papers or move any application requesting for leave. Absentee notice dated 23. 2. 1999 was issued to him and was served upon his wife. Thereafter, another notice dated 10. 3. 1999 was issued to him directing him to resume duties. The petitioner sent a letter stating that he was sick and because of his illness he cannot resume duty. The respondents vide memo dated 7. 4. 1999 asked the petitioner to undergo medical examination. This memo was sent through a Special Messenger for service at the house of the petitioner. The brother of the petitioner, Mr. Sat Pal Singh, informed the Special Messenger that the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known, as he had not been coming home for the last one month.

( 3 ) IN these circumstances, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for wilfully absenting himself from duty vide order dated 18. 4. 1999. It was also noticed in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had absented himself earlier on 13 different occasions for which he had been reprimanded but he had failed to mend himself and was in a habit of absenting himself unauthorisedly. It may be relevant to state here that till the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings the petitioner had not reported back for duty.

( 4 ) THE enquiry officer sent repeated notices to the petitioner but he did not appear and ultimately ex-parte proceedings were directed against him in terms of Rule 16 (3) on 2. 8. 1999. On 11. 8. 1999, however, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and received a copy of the summary of allegations, list of documents, list of witnesses along with ex parte order and the matter was adjourned for recording of evidence etc on 16. 8. 1999. On 16. 8. 1999, again the petitioner did not appear and various witnesses were examined. Ex parte evidence was also recorded on 18/20. 8. 1999. On 26. 8. 1999, the enquiry officer completed the proceedings and charge was got served upon the petitioner, to which again there was no response. On the basis of evidence and material before the enquiry officer, he submitted his findings. As per the enquiry report dated 28. 9. 1999, the charges against the petitioner were held proved.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the Deputy Commissioner of police vide its order dated 11. 10. 1999 called upon the petitioner to make written statements/representations against the findings of the enquiry officer within 15 days. The said order along with the enquiry report etc. were delivered to the brother of the petitioner, Mr. Sat Pal on 7. 10. 1999 but no written representation was received. To give another opportunity to the petitioner, letter dated 26. 10. 1999 was issued asking the petitioner to appear before the Deputy commissioner of Police on 29. 10. 1999. The said letter was delivered to the mother of the petitioner but again he did not appear and/or submit any reply to the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 29. 10. 1999. The petitioner also did not report to the authorities.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING various aspects and after examining the report of the enquiry officer, the Deputy Commissioner of Police as the disciplinary authority held that the charges against the petitioner stood proved and he was found to be totally disinterested i