Disciplinary proceedings against police officers must be conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Regulation 490 of the U.P. Police Regulations.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7. 2. 1986 dismissing the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.

( 3 ) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner absented from duly from 11. 2. 83 to 31. 7. 83 without taking leave in accordance with rules. Consequently. disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Charge-sheet dated 22. 8. 83 was issued. According to the statement of fact made in the inquiry report charge-sheet was served upon the uncle of the petitioner. Thereafter. inquiry Officer conducted proceedings behind the bach of the petitioner and submitted his report on 27. 12. 85. After inquiry, inquiry officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been proved. Therefore, on the basis of the said inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 14. 1. 86 was issued with the copy of report to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service. On receipt of show cause notice and the report, the petitioner filed his reply on 25. 1. 86 contending that on receipt of telegram from his wife, he has to leave for his home after making necessary entry in G. D. at the police station. Firstly, he remained busy in the treatment of his wife, thereafter he himself fell ill, consequently, he could not attend to his duties and that he used to apply for grant of leave. It was also stated that entire disciplinary proceedings were conducted behind his back and contrary to the provisions of regulation 490 of the Police Regulations.

( 4 ) DISCIPLINARY authority rejecting the explanation offered by the petitioner for the absence from duty, without giving any importance to the procedure prescribed under Regulation 490, dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 7. 2. 1986.

( 5 ) CHALLENGING validity of order of dismissal, petitioner filed an appeal before next higher authority, i. e. Director General of Police. When the appeal filed by the petitioner was pending disposal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, he approached this Court and filed the present petition.

( 6 ) DURING pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 26. 6. 88.

( 7 ) THE petitioner, challenged the validity of said appellate order by means of amendment application, which was allowed. Amendment has also been incorporated in the writ petition by learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 8 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents contending that the petitioner deliberately absented from duty without obtaining leave and as he was not available at the address given by him in the department, consequently, charge-sheet meant for him was sent at his official residence where he was not found, consequently, charge-sheet was served upon his uncle. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and ultimately submitted inquiry report. As the charges were found proved, the petitioner was dismissed from service after following the procedure prescribed under the law. In reply to the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner in which the facts stated in the counter affidavit have been controverted and the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated and reasserted. A supplementary counter-affidavit has also been filed.

( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the procedure prescribed for conducting disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the Police Department, Regulation 490 of the U. P. Police Regulations, has not been followed in the present case and the entire disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in violation of the said Regulatio