Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Satish Madhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19th January, 2004 passed by Commandant 4th Battalion, P.A.C., Allahabad dismissing the petitioner from service invoking power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules). The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected on the ground of barred by limitation on 17th June, 2004 against which order the petitioner filed a revision which too was dismissed by order dated 28th March, 2005.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are; petitioner was appointed as Constable in U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary on 2nd October, 1998 and was posted at 4th Battalion, P.A.C., Allahabad. After joining on 2nd October, 1998 the petitioner in the year 2000 absented for 122 days unauthorisedly for which period subsequently leave was sanctioned. Again in the year 2002, the petitioner absented for 22 days for which period leave was sanctioned without pay. On 2nd October, 2003, the petitioner was instructed to proceed to Gorakhpur on 3.10.2003 alongwith guard carrying the salary of the employees at 6.00 a.m. On 3.10.2003 the petitioner was not found present at 6.00 a.m. and despite search he could not be found. On 31.10.2003 a registered letter was sent at his address calling him to join duty. The said registered letter was returned with endorsement that he is not at his home. A preliminary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. In the preliminary inquiry one constable, Brij Mohan was sent to the village of the petitioner in State of Bihar on 9.1.2004 where also the petitioner could not be found. On inquiry from petitioner’s father and Gram Pradhan of the Village it came to the notice that petitioner sometime comes at his home but without informing go away. It was informed that on 20th December, 2003, the petitioner departed from village for getting medicine for his mother. On 25th December, 2003 he was also seen in the village but thereafter the family members of the petitioner’s family were not aware about the whereabouts of the petitioner. The Commandant by an order dated 19th January, 2004, after recording reasons, invoking the power under Rule 8(2)(b) dismissed the petitioner from service. The order was challenged in appeal, which appeal was dismissed as barred by time. Against the order dismissing the appeal, the petitioner filed a revision before the revisional authority. The revisional authority considered the submissions of the petitioner on merits and did not found any ground to interfere with the punishment order.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order, contended that there is no finding in the order that it is not reasonably practicable possible to hold an inquiry and without there being such finding invoking the power under Rule 8(2)(b) is unjustified. He submits that according to Rule 16 of 1991 Rules, the respondents were obliged to hold a disciplinary inquiry in absentia and without holding an inquiry the petitioner could not have been dismissed. He further submits that although in Rule 16 the word “may" has been used but the said word has to be read as the word “shall”. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relied on judgments of this Court reported in 1996 AWC 245; Balveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2002)1 UPLBEC 775; Sukhbir Singh v. S.S.P., Agra and others, 2005(3) AWC 2409; Ravindra Raghav v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(2) ESC 1229; Jai Singh Bhandari v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2006(4) ESC 2303 (All); Bhupat Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(3) ADJ 70; Rajesh Verma v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(8) ADJ 570; Narendra Prasad Rai v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(3) ADJ 143; Raghunath Singh v. State of U