Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination of his services passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27th of September, 1990, against which, departmental appeal of the petitioner has also come to be dismissed on 1st of September, 2003 and also the order passed by the Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Uttar Pradesh dated 14th of June, 2008 dismissing his revision petition.

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable (Driver) in the year 1989 and while posted at the police station, Kuber Asthan, district Deoria on 5.12.1989 he proceeded on leave and returned back only on 17th of February, 1990 by making entry in the General Diary (hereinafter referred to as ‘G.D.’) at the relevant police station. There is nothing on record to establish that thereafter the petitioner continued to discharge his duties as a Government servant any further. The preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter of his absence from duty as he had proceeding on leave without sanction from the competent authority, and ultimately, the preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 26th of February, 1990 recommending a fulfleged departmental enquiry into the act of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. The competent police authorities directed for holding a regular enquiry in the matter on 28th of April, 1990. Charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 9.6.1990, but since he was not available, therefore the charge-sheet alongwith preliminary enquiry was directed to be served at his residence. The petitioner, in reply to the charge-sheet, did not submit any detailed reply and instead, he submitted a reply on 18th of July, 1990 to the effect that his earlier reply in the preliminary enquiry has not been considered by the enquiry officer. He further submitted that on account of his illness he could not discharge his duties and as leaves were available in his account, the same may be adjusted against the period of his absence.

4. The enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry in the matter even in the absence of effective reply by the petitioner, but later on, it appears petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and prayed that certain medical officers, who had issued the medical certificates were required to be examined. The question therefore, before the enquiry officer was whether proof of the document was strictly required to be done in accordance with law of evidence or the enquiry officer could have considered the veracity of the documents on its face value and also in view of the attending circumstances and the statements being recorded of the other persons during enquiry and so it was no more required for the enquiry officer to call for a particular defence witness.

5. The enquiry report ultimately was submitted by the enquiry officer holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. It appears that the show-cause notice thereafter was given to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply. In the show-cause notice, it has been categorically recorded by the disciplinary authority that even though the ex parte statements have been recorded of the prosecution witnesses and yet when the question was put to the petitioner as to whether he wanted to examine or cross-examine them, he outrightly refused to do so and said that he would produce his own witnesses. This observations or the statements, which have come in the show-cause notice, has not been effectively replied to, by the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice and he has not specifically made any statement even in the writ petition that this particular fact which has come to be recorded in the show-cause notice was incorrect. The disciplinary authority accordingly considered the reply of the petitioner and proceeded to pass an order on 27th of September, 1990 imposing maximum punishment of dismissal from service. Against that order, though the petitioner had preferred an appeal, b