JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by filing this petition whereby the petitioner had put to challenge an order dated 29.04.2014 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Goalpara, by which the petitioner who was a U.B. Constable was dismissed from service after a departmental proceeding. It is the further case of the petitioner that against the order of dismissal, he had unsuccessfully preferred a departmental appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

3. The petitioner was duly appointed as a U.B. Constable w.e.f. 16.08.1987 and posted in the Goalpara D.E.F. Till the impugned disciplinary proceeding there was no blemish in his long career. It is the case of the petitioner that while working under the Lakhipur Police Station, on 31.05.2011 he had to go to his native home in connection with his daughter's marriage proposal with the understanding that he will return the very next day. However, after reaching his home, the petitioner seriously fell ill and was diagnosed of jaundice and malaria, as a result of which, he could not report back to his duties. The treatment of the petitioner continued for a long and as per him the situation was telephonically informed to the concerned police station and the salary till 07.09.2012 was also paid by the authorities. Finally on 19.04.2013, the petitioner had resumed his duties after recovering from illness. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice i.e. 07.12.2012 followed by another notice dated 28.03.2013 seeking his response for unauthorised absence. It appears that due to his illness, he could not respond to the Show Cause Notice initially. It further appears that in absence of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was held. However during the course of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner had submitted a reply and accordingly an order dated 07.05.2013 was passed holding the reply to be not satisfactory and for continuation of the departmental proceeding. By the said order, an Enquiry Officer was also appointed.

4. It appears that enquiry conducted had culminating in a report whereby the charge against the petitioner was held to be proved. The disciplinary authority vide communication dated 29.03.2014 had issued a further notice by which the petitioner was granted an opportunity before awarding a major penalty. It was further stated that the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the enquiry and the findings was accepted. The petitioner had submitted his response to the second Show Cause Notice on 02.04.2014 and after consideration of the same, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service. As stated above, the departmental appeal dated 31.07.2014 was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 28.11.2014. It is the order of penalty of the disciplinary authority and the confirmation order of the appellate authority which are the subject matters of challenge in the present writ petition.

5. I have heard Shri K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents, who has also produced the records.

6. Shri Paul, the learned counsel has submitted that the procedural safeguards as envisaged under the statute holding the field have not been afforded to the petitioner. He was denied of a reasonable opportunity to defend his case for which grave prejudice was caused to him. Learned counsel further submits that the charge could not have been of unauthorised absence as the very fact of payment of salaries till the period 07.09.2012 would itself show that the authorities were aware of the situation of the petitioner.

7. On the other hand Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel had submitted that the charge of unauthorised absence is apparent as there was no material whatsoever on record to substantiate that the petitioner had ever c