This petition is directed against the order dated 28.12.1991, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated, and the order dated 18.07.1992 (Annexure-2) passed in appeal as well as the order dated 02.05.1995 (Annexure-3) dismissing the review petition.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable with the Rajasthan Police on 11.06.1981. He stated to have been confirmed after successful completion of training in the year 1982. The petitioner was issued charge-sheet on 28.06.1991 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules') as amended in 1983, for unauthorised absence from duty from 14.09.1989 till 15.03.1991. After regular enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 28.12.1991, which is impugned in this petition.

3. Mr.Ankur Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the procedure, as stipulated under the CCA Rules, was not followed, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend his case and he was not provided the relevant documents to present his defence. He has also submitted that the petitioner was seriously ill during the period of absence as well as during the period of enquiry, and was, therefore, unable to appear before the enquiry officer. He has further submitted that even if the charges levelled against the petitioner are assumed to be proved, the punishment of dismissal from service is excessive and grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Learned counsel lastly argued that the disciplinary authority has not recorded a finding that the absence was willful, and hence the impugned order is vitiated on this ground as well. In support of the aforesaid arguments, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B.Parmar vs. Union of India & Another [(2012) 3 SCC 178], Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited & Another vs. Jai Raj Singh Chauhan [(2011) 13 SCC 541], Bhagwan Lal Arya vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. [2004(3) SLR 70], Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Others [(2009) 15 SCC 620], and the judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Avadh Behari Pachauri vs. State of Rajasthan [2005(1) SLR 607].

4. On the other hand, Dr.A.S.Khangarot, learned Additional Government Counsel has submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend his case and only thereafter the impugned order of dismissal was passed. He further submitted that the entire procedure, as laid down under the CCA Rules, was followed while passing the order of termination. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2011)14 SCC 682].

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance perused the record.

6. It is apparent from record that the petitioner was not present during the roll call on 14.09.1989 at 8.00 p.m. He continued to remain absent till 15.03.1991. He had neither applied for leave nor sent any intimation about his absence to the respondent-authorities. It is also borne out that a notice had been sent at the residence of the petitioner asking him to join duty, but the petitioner failed to do so.

7. There does not seem to be any merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. It is palpably clear from the additional affidavit, filed by the respondents, that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in the presence of the petitioner or his defence nominee. The enquiry officer had recorded the statement of PW-5 Yaddvir Singh, Reservice Inspector in the presence of the defence nominee, and the petitioner was informed, vide letter dated 08