Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—This is a writ petition by a class IV employee challenging an order dated 6.11.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Unnao dismissing the petitioner from service.

2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a ‘Follower’ in the State of U.P. on 27.1.1995 by an order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow after due selection as per the then existing U.P. Government Servant Employees Service Rules 1985 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules 1985'), a fact which is admitted to the opposite parties in para 4 of their counter-affidavit.

3. On account of his absence from duty a charge-sheet dated 1.10.2014 was issued to him under Rule 14(1) of the Rules known as U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules 1991'), to which he claims to have submitted a reply on 27.1.2014 denying the charges though a copy of the same has not been annexed with the writ petition. Thereafter enquiry was held and the enquiry report dated 14.7.2015 was submitted by the enquiry officer to the Disciplinary Authority whereupon a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.7.2015 to which he submitted his reply on 22.9.2015. Thereafter the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was passed under Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules 1991.

4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was as under :

(1) The entire proceedings having taken place under the Rules 1991 which were not applicable to the petitioner, instead, the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules 1999') being applicable by virtue of Rule 29 of the U.P. Police Group ‘D’ Employees Service Rules 2009 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules 2009'), the same are not sustainable, in view of the settled legal position in this regard vide a judgement dated 10.4.2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 169 of 2012, Krishna Murari v. State, which has been followed in several other judgements and the S.L.P. against the aforesaid judgement has also been dismissed. The petitioner and other Group ‘D’ employees are not appointed under the Police Act, therefore, the Rules 2009 should in fact be treated as having been made under the proviso to Article 309 and not the Act 1861, as the said Act does not contain any provision for their appointment.

(2) The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witnesses during enquiry nor the relevant documents demanded by him vide his letter dated 13.11.2014 were provided to him thereby denying him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

(3) The punishment imposed was excessive as it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges.

(4) The impugned action amounted to double jeopardy as the entire character roll of the petitioner including adverse entry and punishment orders passed earlier have been taken into consideration in the charge-sheet and during enquiry.

5. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand urged that the Rules 2009 having been made in exercise of the powers vested under Sections 2 and 46 of the Police Act 1861 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act 1861'), the petitioner by virtue of the said rules was part of the Police Force and hence the Rules 1991 regulating departmental proceedings, punishment and Appeals of police officers of the subordinate ranks of the Uttar Pradesh Force, which have been framed under Section 46 read with Section 2 and 7 of the Police Act 1861, are fully applicable, therefore, reliance placed by the petitioner upon the Rules 1999 is misplaced and misconceived.

6. The disciplinary proceedings were held against the petitioner considering his absence of 26 days which was the charge leveled against him and after giving due opportunity to him by way of submission of reply, examin