The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adherence to natural justice principles, proper communication, and compliance with prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Rajesh Nath Tripathi and ekta Kour learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) IN this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 7. 4. 2000 passed by respondent no. 2 Inspector General of police, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow and order dated 8th November, 1989 passed by respondent no. 3 Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow. Further prayer has been made for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service even after 8th November, 1989 and to pay full salary to the petitioner. Further prayer has also been made for seeking direction to the respondents to pay the difference of salary for the period between 6th October, 1987 till 8th november, 1989 and for payment of the interest at the rate of 24% on the arrears of salary and the difference of salary unpaid to the petitioner.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition was that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-inspector in U. P. Police in the year 1987 and when he was posted as Sub-inspector in Special Investigation Cell Sahkarita mukhyalaya, Sitapur the petitioner left the place of posting on 5. 10. 1987 after recording his lefting at serial no. 3 in G. D. of the office at 9. 00 p. m. on 5. 10. 87 for recording his evidence before Special investigation Cell Sahkarita Mukhyalaya, lucknow for 5. 10. 87 as such the petitioner was on duty on 5. 10. 87 and 6. 10. 87.

( 4 ) THE information of recording his evidence was intimated to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, as such the permission was already granted, however without waiting the return of the petitioner, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the charge that the petitioner had not taken permission prior to leave the office on 5. 10. 87. In the suspension order the petitioner was not attached to any place or posted to any office. As contended by the petitioner no charge sheet was served to the petitioner neither any inquiry officer was appointed nor the petitioner was intimated with regard to the any disciplinary proceeding or departmental inquiry being conducted against the petitioner till 8. 11. 89, no information was given to the petitioner, however the petitioner when unofficially gathered information about the disciplinary proceeding, he immediately moved an application before the D. I. G. for supply of notice and charge sheet so that he may participate in the alleged inquiry. After five months the petitioners service was dismissed on the ground of unauthorised absence for a period of 28 days i. e. from 7. 10. 87 to 4. 11. 87. One charge for unauthorised absence is for a period of 5. 10. 87 and 6. 10. 87 for which the petitioner was on duty for recording the evidence before Investigation Cell. The petitioner has been visiting the police office for receiving substantial amount even then no charge sheet was served to the petitioner and no notice was ever given to the petitioner before passing of the dismissal order.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has also submitted that he was never served charge sheeted and he was not afforded opportunity to file the reply and no opportunity was afforded to him for adducing evidence or cross examine the witnesses. The documents relied upon by the respondents have not been furnished to him and no date, time and place of inquiry was intimated to him and by paper work the respondents have endeavoured to show that the intimations were sent to the petitioner by way of affixing the notice at the residential address of the petitioner. According to the petitioner no inquiry report or any show cause notice in respect of the dismissal was also intimated to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the dismissal order is illegal and the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by non-application of mind.

( 6 ) THE counter affidavit has been filed. According to the respondents th