Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Matlib, learned Government Advocate, Assam.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 19.05.2009, issued by the disciplinary authority imposing the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner.

3. This matter was heard at length on 17.09.2015, following which, the following order was passed:-

"By order dated 19.05.2009 issued by the Special Superintendent of Police, CID, petitioner was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence.

A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on the charge of overstay of leave w.e.f. 28.04.2006. As per report of enquiry, the charge was proved. Notices issued to the petitioner were not responded. Holding that petitioner committed gross misconduct and acted in an in-disciplined manner, disciplinary authority took the view that she was not fit to remain in a disciplined force like the CID, Assam Police. Accordingly, impugned penalty was imposed.

From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 5 (disciplinary authority) it transpires that a show-cause notice dated 07.05.2007 was issued to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Police Act read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-III and Article 311 of the Constitution as to why any of the penalties prescribed therein should not be inflicted on her for the charges framed against her. The charges related to unauthorized absence of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.04.2006. Enquiry was held where petitioner did not participate. Charges were proved in the enquiry where after penalty was imposed. However, copy of the enquiry report has not been annexed to the counter affidavit.

According to the petitioner, she was suffering from depressive psychosis, a mental ailment, and was under treatment in the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital during that period. As per medical certificate dated 09.11.2009 she was declared fit to resume duties. Other medical certificates have been placed on record to show that petitioner was under medical treatment in the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital for various periods. Petitioner had applied for leave of 83 days which was processed in the office.

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following grounds challenging the impugned order:-

1. Show-cause notice dated 07.05.2007 was not served on the petitioner. The notice was addressed to the office address of the petitioner and not to her home address. When it was a case of unauthorized absence, notice ought to have been sent to the home address.

2. Petitioner had no knowledge about drawal of departmental proceeding.

3. Enquiry proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner. Here also, she was not served with any notice of enquiry.

4. As petitioner was suffering from mental illness, the notice ought to have been sent not only to her home address but also served on her immediate family member.

5. Since petitioner had given adequate explanation for her absence from duty mainly on account of mental illness supported by medical certificates, it was not a case of misconduct on account of unauthorized absence.

6. Since petitioner suffered from mental illness in the course of her service it would come within the definition of "disability" within the meaning of Section 2(I)(viii) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Equal Participation) Act, 1995. In such circumstances, petitioner would be protected under Section 47 of the said Act.

Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, impugned penalty cannot be sustained and is liable to be interfered with."

4. At the fag end of hearing, Mr. B. Chetri, learned Senior Government Advocate appeared and prayed for a short time to produce the record of the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the petitioner. On his request, further hearing of the case wa