Mr. Mohinder Pal, J.: - This regular second appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab (appellants-defendants) against the judgment and decree dated 16.12.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Patiala has been allowed.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) was working as a Constable in the Punjab Police. He was posted on guard duty of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. He remained absent from duty from 11.11.1987 to 30.1.1989 i.e. one year, 2 months and 21 days and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him, under the orders of Additional Superintendent of Police. The Additional Superintendent of Police appointed an Inspector as an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the matter, who framed a charge-sheet. The same was approved by the Additional Superintendent of Police. The respondent did not participate in the inquiry in spite of receiving summons and the Inspector held ex parte proceedings and submitted his report. A show cause notice was also served on him by the Senior Superintendent of Police, but neither he replied to the same nor he put in appearance before the Senior Superintendent of Police. The services of the respondent were dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.1.1989 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The appeal before the DIG, Patiala and revision petition before the DGP/Inspector General of Police filed by the respondent were dismissed vide orders dated 8.5.1989 8.7.1991 respectively. In the civil suit filed on 5.1.1994, he alleged that the impugned orders were illegal and void on the ground that the Additional Superintendent of Police was not the punishing authority of the plaintiffrespondent. Therefore, neither he was competent to appoint Inquiry Officer nor to frame charge-sheet. It was contended that the charge-sheet was required to be framed by the punishing authority himself and Inquiry Officer was also required to be appointed by that authority. It was also pleaded that Inspector is not a superior Officer, therefore, he was not competent to hold an inquiry against the plaintiff-respondent. An ex parte inquiry was held and no efforts were made to serve the plaintiff-respondent. Copy of the inquiry report was also not supplied to the plaintiff-respondent. It was also pleaded that the order of the punishing authority as well as orders of the appellate authority and revisional authority were non-speaking orders. The absence from duty is not the gravest act of misconduct. Therefore, dismissal from service was disproportionate punishment and was liable to be set aside.

3. The suit has been contested by the defendants (appellants herein) on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority. The Superintendent of Police, Headquarters/ Additional Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police are equal in rank and any one of them can pass the order in case of misconduct of a Constable. It was also pleaded that while holding inquiry against the plaintiff-respondent proper procedure was followed. Process was served upon the plaintiff at his home address. He did not appear despite repeated adjournments as he was absent from duty. Therefore, he was proceeded against ex parte and inquiry was held in his absence. The plaintiffrespondent neither submitted reply to the show cause notice nor appeared in person for personal hearing despite grant of sufficient time to him. The respondent abstained from appearance before the Inquiry Officer and finally it had been submitted that full opportunity was given to the respondent during inquiry and the impugned order was legal and valid. The appeal and the revision petition filed by him were rejected by the competent authorities.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as nine issues, however, the