1. The State is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.04.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court while allowing SWP no. 232/2008. Accordingly the learned Single Judge has quashed Order No. 369 of 1990 dated 17.05.1990 removing the writ petitioner-respondent from ser#31;vice by dispensing with the regular de#31;partmental enquiry.

FACTS:

2. In order to put the controversy in its right perspective it would be neces#31;sary to notice some facts. The writ petitioner-respondent was appointed as a Constable on 15.03.1984. He claimed to have proceeded on ten days casual leave w.e.f. 17.05.1990. On the expiry of leave on 27.05.1990 he moved an application before the Competent Authority, assert#31;ing that he had left an application for station leave but in daily register he was shown absent. Therefore, he re#31;quested that he may be permitted to mark his presence. According to the allegations, no response was sent and he served a legal notice through his Ad#31;vocate on 27.07.1995. In response to the legal notice, appellant no.3 in his com#31;munication to appellant no. 4 informed that the writ petitioner had already been removed from service und