The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for disciplinary proceedings to adhere to the principles of natural justice, including affording the accused proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings and ensuring proportionality of punishment.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the termination order dated 5. 9. 1994 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the petitioners appeal (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner has served as Constable in Civil Police for about 16 years. When the petitioner was posted as Constable in Civil Police at Police Station, Police Lines, Agra, it has been stated that due to domestic reasons, he applied for leave from 1. 6. 1992 to 8. 7. 1992 and again from 30. 10. 1992 to 6. 12. 1992. It is said that the petitioner was never communicated by the officials that whether the leave has been sanctioned or not but as there was unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner has to go on leave. It is for this unauthorised absence, the petitioner appears to have been proceeded in which the petitioner has been punished with the order of termination which has been confirmed by the appellate authority.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no proper enquiry as after furnishing explanation by the petitioner, the enquiry officer has not afforded opportunity to cross examine the witness. It has been submitted that the petitioner was given assurance that if he accepts his guilt, lesser punishment will be given and therefore, without affording any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses without supplying materials sought to be relied upon against the petitioner, the enquiry officer submitted report on the basis of which, disciplinary authority has taken decision to terminate the petitioners services. Lastly, it has been submitted that misconduct on the part of the petitioner was not so grave. warranting extreme punishment.

( 4 ) IN response to the aforesaid submission learned standing counsel, on the facts so stated in the counter-affidavit argues that the petitioner being employed in a disciplined force has proceeded unauthorisedly for quite some long time and therefore, after affording adequate opportunity, appropriate decision has been taken by the concerned authorities. Learned counsel submits that quantum of punishment, in the particular facts is a question of fact to which this Court should not intervene.

( 5 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submission, material as has come on record, has been examined.

( 6 ) IT appears from the reply as has been submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 1, that he has worked in the department for about 16 years. The charge on which the petitioner has been proceeded relates to his absence for the period 1. 6. 1992 to 8. 7. 1992 and 30. 10. 1992 to 6. 12. 1992. In respect to the aforesaid absence on receipt of show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation. It has been specifically stated in paras 4, 6 and 11 of the writ petition that the petitioner was assured by the enquiry officer that in the event of accepting charges, he will be awarded minor punishment and it is for this, the petitioner could not get any opportunity in the departmental proceedings to get the witnesses cross-examined. It has also beenpointed out that the petitioner was never supplied with copy of the statement of witnesses and other materials which were relied against the petitioner. The reply to this averments as has been made in the writ petition, is contained in para 6 of the counter-affidavit which appears to be vague. The averments made in other paragraphs of the counter-affidavit are more vague. The respondents have not given any detail in respect to the dates on which the petitioner has been given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and whether the documents sought to be relied against the petitioner have been given to him. The report of the enquiry officer on closure of examination, speaks that it has placed reliance on certain findings and observ