Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

This intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Bench dated 21st January 2005 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant against order of termination dated 05th April 1996 was dismissed.

2. The appellant-petitioner who was working as Constable with the Rajasthan Police is alleged to have absented from duty without leave from 14.01.1994 to 30.11.1994. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and after report of the Inquiry Officer wherein the charges were found proved against the appellant, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 05th April 1996.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was unwell during the period of absence and the medical certificates which he produced were erroneously overlooked while passing the impugned order. It is further contended that the charge of absence from duty without leave against the appellant is not such a charge which would warrant dismissal from service. He relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another (2012) 3 SCC 178 in support of his submissions.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant being member of disciplined force like Rajasthan Police had absented for a period of over 10 months and hence, only punishment appropriate in this case would be dismissal from service.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is evident that the appellant-petitioner had absented from duty without leave on 14th January 1994. The appellant had produced medical certificates only after a period of 8 months of his absence. The first medical certificate was produced by him in September 1994 which indicated that he was suffering from backache. The medical certificate for the month of October 1994 shows that he was having depression and backache while the certificate for the period from 31st October to 21st November 1994 states that he had low back pain and it was also certified that he was fit to resume duty on 30th November 1994. There is another certificate issued in October 1996 which shows that the petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia.

7. These medical certificates only indicate that the appellant was suffering from various ailments and do not show that the appellant had, in fact, been admitted in hospital during the period of his aforementioned absence.

8. Further, from the perusal of record it appears that even on earlier occasions the appellant was absent from duty without leave viz. from 02.09.1982 to 26.09.1982 (25 days), from 21.09.1987 to 02.10.1987 (12 days) and from 12.06.1993 to 13.08.1993 (63 days). The appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry and he was present when statement of prosecution witness was recorded. The appellant had not demanded any document which was not furnished to him. Even though vide letter dated 14th July 1995 the Inquiry Officer had asked the appellant-petitioner to lead his evidence in defence or submit his reply but the appellant did not produce anything in his defence. A copy of the inquiry report was also furnished to him which has been received under his signatures on 22nd January 1996.

9. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant-petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and the procedure laid down in the rules for conduct of departmental inquiry was properly followed before passing the order of dismissal from service.

10. The judgment in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts from the instant case. In that case it was specific defence of the delinquent that he was prevented from attending the duty and was not allowed to sign attendance register. The evidence produced by him to substantiate his claim in this regard was ignored by the authorities concerned and on the basis of irrelevant facts