1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate order quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal dated 8th April 1993, confirmed in appeal vide order dated 27th July 1993, and upheld by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 11th January 1994, and reinstating the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages with interest.

2 The short facts of the case are as under:

2.1 That the petitioner was serving as an Armed Police Constable in the State Reserve Police Force, Cadre No.10, Ukai until he came to be dismissed from service on 8th April 1993. A charge sheet dated 26th February 1991 came to be served on the petitioner on the ground that on 14th September 1990, when the petitioner was posted at a very sensitive point of Wadi Police Station area of Vadodara during the communal riots near Ranavav Masjid, he remained absent. That, on that day, when the communal atmosphere was surcharged in the City of Vadodara, without obtaining permission of the superior, Head Constable, Shri Ajitsingh M. Yadav, the petitioner remained absent from 20.15 hrs. and left the said point. Thus, the petitioner had shown gross negligence and carelessness in performance of his duties. That, the petitioner replied to the charge sheet and submitted that, in fact, the petitioner had not deserted the sensitive point where he was posted on duty, but had informed the Jamadar, Ajitsingh M. Yadav, incharge of the point, that he was down with head-ache and required some medicine and, therefore, had gone to the camp. That, thereafter, immediately, the petitioner reported on duty, but was not permitted to, and, on the next day, the petitioner informed the superior officer and incharge Police Inspector, but of no avail and, later on, he was charge-sheeted. That, the Departmental Authority thought it fit to appoint Enquiry Officer and to hold a departmental enquiry in accordance with the Rules. That, on 7th September 1992, the petitioner consented for self-defence and, after examining documentary as well as oral evidence in the form of statements of witnesses, the Enquiry Officer found the charges against the petitioner proved beyond any doubt. In the departmental enquiry, three witnesses came to be examined, namely, Police Inspector, M.L.Pawar of âSBâý Company, Armed Police Constable, Badamsingh Jayaram and Bhagwansingh Narsingh both of 'Bâý Company, and documentary evidence in the form of police diary maintained by Shri Pawar, Police Inspector, extracts of police diary dated 14.9.1990 of Police Inspector, Shri Pawar, visit book dated 14.9.1990 and daily duty lists dated 14.9.l1990 and 15.9.1990 and other registers was produced. The above examination of witnesses and documents was in consonance with the statements and report given to the petitioner along with the charge sheet.

2.2 A show cause notice dated 16th March 1993 was issued by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend his case and even to cross examine witness Nos. 1, 3 and 4, but not availed by the petitioner, and, after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, it was mentioned in the said show cause notice that, since charges were proved, considering the seriousness of the misconduct of grave nature, read with Rule 47(5) of the Bombay State Reserve Police Rules, 1959 and Section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the powers given therein, why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service and the period of suspension should not be treated as such. The petitioner was furnished the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the above show cause notice.

2.3 On 29th March 1993, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice and submitted that, during the service tenure of 10 years, the petitioner served the department with sincerity and the petitioner is implicated in a false case. Not only that, but the petitioner had not l