Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 06-11-2009 passed by the Commandant, 12th Assam Police Battalion, Jamugurihat in the district of Sonitpur discharging the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Further prayer made is for a direction to the respondents for his reinstatement in service. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Armed Branch Constable on probation in the 12th Assam Police Battalion, Jamugurihat w.e.f. 07-05-2008 vide the appointment letter dated 05-05-2008 issued by the Commandant of the said Battalion. Such appointment was made subject to successful completion of basic training.

2. While the petitioner was undergoing basic training, a show-cause notice dated 28-08-2009 was issued to him by the Commandant of the Battalion acting as the disciplinary authority. In the said show-cause notice, DP (Disciplinary Proceeding) No. 20/2009 was mentioned, perhaps to indicate that the said show-cause notice was in relation to the above disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner was asked to show-cause under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-III and Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 15-08-2009 at about 3:20 pm, he remained absent from the Battalion Head-Quarters unauthorizedly and entered into the house of Havildar Surendra Nath Borah with bad intention and showing indisciplined conduct at public place after consuming liquor. He was accordingly charged with indiscipline and gross misconduct.

3. According to the petitioner, he had submitted his written statement immediately after receipt of show-cause notice. While denying the allegation made against him, petitioner sought forgiveness and leniency for any act which might have been construed by the authority as an act of negligence or indiscipline.

4. Thereafter, the Commandant passed the impugned order dated 06-11-2009 discharging the petitioner from service. The said order was passed after considering the findings and relevant papers of D.P. No. 20/2009. Reference was made to an earlier D.P. No. 06/2009 whereafter he was allowed to continue in service taking a lenient view. It was further observed that petitioner's conduct will adversely affect the other recruits.

5. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

6. Contention of the petitioner is that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to participate in D.P. No. 20/2009. No information was furnished to him as to which documents would be exhibited in the enquiry or who would be the witnesses to depose. Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses in the enquiry. Petitioner was also not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report. Impugned order was passed after taking into account the findings of earlier D.P. No. 06/2009 which was not a part of the charge. Impugned order in tainted with stigma and, therefore, petitioner should have been provided reasonable and adequate opportunity before his discharge, which is not a termination simplicitor but a punitive one.

7. Respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit. It is stated that petitioner's appointment was subject to successful completion of basic training. Petitioner was undergoing basic training of the 95th batch but he did not complete the basic training. Petitioner was discharged from training by the Commandant, 11th Assam Police Battalion, Dergaon. However, his case was sympathetically considered and he was sent to undergo basic training again. It is stated that while the petitioner was undergoing basic training in 12th Assam Police Battalion, he left the barrack without taking permission from the competent authority and went to the house of Havildar Surendra Nath Borah on 15-08-2009 where some indecent incident was reported. The incident was re