Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.: - By filing the present appeal, the plaintiff-appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby his appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 3.11.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurdaspur dismissing his suit, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned order of dismissal dated 2.9.2003 passed by the defendant-respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 4.7.2005 passed by the defendant-respondent No.3 are illegal and unconstitutional in the eyes of law with further prayer that he be reinstated in service. Upon notice, suit was resisted. After hearing both the sides, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. On an appeal having been filed, the same has also been dismissed, hence the present second appeal.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, this court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both the courts have gravely erred while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff appellant as the impugned order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority are absolutely wrong, illegal and in violation of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short “1934 Rules”)

5. On the other hand, learned state counsel vehemently opposed the contention of the appellant. He submitted that the plaintiff-appellant has committed a gravest act of misconduct and thus he has rightly been dismissed from service.

6. A perusal of the paper book reveals that while working as Constable with Government Railway Police, Punjab (for “GRP Punjab”), the plaintiff-appellant was posted at Transit Camp GRP Ambala Cantt and deputed for Train Escort Duty from Ambala Cantt to Pathankot on 24.6.2002. The plaintiff had to report back from Pathankot but he did not come back and as such was treated absent vide DDR No.65 dated 26.6.2002. It transpires that the plaintiff-appellant reported back only on 18.12.2002 i.e after absence of 175 days, 12 hours and 55 minutes, thus the plaintiff-appellant was proceeded departmentally under the Service Rules and was found guilty in a departmental inquiry as he did not join the inquiry proceedings. A show cause notice dated 26.5.2003 was issued for the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. Plaintiff appeared personally but could not satisfy the disciplinary authority and thus he was dismissed from service vide order dated 2.9.2003. An appeal was preferred but the same was also dismissed.

7. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-appellant remained absent for 175 days, 12 hours and 55 minutes. It is clearly proved on record that despite notices (Ex.D1 to D.4), the plaintiff-appellant did not appear before the Inquiry Officer and he was proceeded ex parte. Notice (Ex.D.2) was duly received by the wife of the plaintiff and notice (Ex.D.3) was duly received by the plaintiff himself under his signatures. Inquiry report is produced on record as Ex.D5 and dismissal order is Ex.P1/D.7, which clearly discloses that due to noncompliance of the notices, the competent authority i.e AIG has ordered for ex parte proceedings under the Punjab Police Rules.

8. The contention of the plaintiff-appellant that he remained ill during the period of absence was not substantiated before the Inquiry Officer. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to point out that there is any breach of mandatory provisions of law while conducting the disciplinary proceedings in the present case. The plea of illness is only an after thought. Had there been any iota of truth in the stand of the plaintiff-appellant, he should have produced the medical Certificates issued by the concerned Doctor as per law at the appropriate stage, which has not be