Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Departmental Proceeding no.45/2004 as contained in D.O. Dated 31.12.2005 pertaining to dismissal from services and for quashing the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 26.03.2008 confirming the order of disciplinary authority and for direction to the respondents to reinstate petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

2. The factual matrix as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner initially was appointed as Constable in the year 1989 and thereafter the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the best of his ability and to the utmost satisfaction of his authorities. During his posting at Chaibasa the petitioner suffered from illness and was treated by the Doctor from 07.11.2002 till 16.02.2003, thereafter, after recovery from illness, he joined the duty on 17.02.2003. Again the petitioner underwent treatment of the doctor from 20.04.2003 to 22.06.2003 after recovery from the said illness, he joined his duty on 23.06.2003. In view of aforesaid absence, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer conducted ex-parte inquiry and submitted inquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of charges. The copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority (respondent no.5) without considering the inquiry report, awarded the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 31.12.2005. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal preferred before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide memo dated 26.03.2008.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

4. Per-contra a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 inter-alia stating therein that the departmental proceeding was commenced against the petitioner for serious indiscipline on duty, gross negligence in duty, running away from duty on his own and for suspicious character. The petitioner was served with copy of charge along with the documents and the petitioner was reported absent from duty without any leave from 06.11.2002 to 17.02.2003 i.e. 102 days continuously, again from 19.04.2003 to 23.06.2003 for 65 days for which earlier departmental proceedings were commenced against him and was deprived from salary increment for one year and for two years, respectively. Another departmental proceeding no.56/2002 is still pending against the petitioner. Vide order dated 31.12.2005, punishment was awarded from dismissing the petitioner which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It has further been submitted that the punishment awarded is neither disproportionate not excessive vis-a-vis the misconduct of the petitioner.

5. Heard Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Shruti Shrestha, J.C. to A.G., learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the documents on records.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner is wholly illegal and arbitrary in view of the fact that absence from duty for sufficient reason is not a misconduct as per Rule 843 of the Police Manual and as such there was no occasion for the respondent no.5 to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The departmental proceeding has been conducted in the perfunctory manner and the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and adduced evidence and to cross examine the witness and the relevant documents submitted by the petitioner in his defence was not con