JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-Present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 13.2.2017 passed by respondent-1, State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''Tribunal'') in Claim Petition No. 1716 of 2014 (Kailash Chand v. State of U.P. and others), whereby Tribunal has dismissed above mentioned Claim Petition filed by Petitioner, Kailash Chand (hereinafter referred to as ''Petitioner'').

2. Perusal of record shows that petitioner applied for the post of Constable in Civil Police U.P. in the year 1999. After passing physical, written and medical examinations, he was declared successful and placed at Sl. No. 270 in the Select List. Accordingly, Petitioner was sent for departmental training at Police Lines, Sitapur as Recruitee Constable.

3. While undergoing training as Recruitee Constable at Police Lines, Sitapur, petitioner absented from the training session on 4.4.2011, 27.9.2011 and 28.9.2011, respectively. Absence of petitioner in training session on above noted three dates, respondent-6, Superintendent of Police, Sitapur issued show-cause notice dated 30.9.2011 to Petitioner asking him to show-cause as to why he may not be dismissed from service in terms of Rule 20(3) of U.P. Police Constables/Head Constable Service Rules 2008 as Amended in 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules of 2008''). Petitioner submitted reply dated 1.10.2011 to show-cause notice dated 30.9.2011 and thereafter, Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent-6, Superintendent of Police, Sitapur thereafter passed order dated 29.10.2011 in terms of Rule 20 (3) of U.P. Police Constables/Head Constables Service Rules 2008 (Amended 2009) dismissing petitioner from service.

4. A perusal of order dated 29.10.2011 shows that since reply submitted by petitioner to show-cause dated 30.9.2011 was not found satisfactory, Petitioner, a probationer, was dismissed from service as per mandate of Rule 20 (3) of Rules, 2008 as amended in 2009.

5. Aggrieved by dismissal order dated 29.10.2011, petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 20 of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules 1991'') before Appellate Authority.

6. Respondent No. 5, i.e. Additional Director General/Inspector General, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow vide order dated 3.12.2012 has dismissed appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner preferred Revision in terms of Rule 23 of Rules 1991 challenging termination order dated 29.10.2011 as well as appellate order dated 3.12.2012, which is also dismissed by Revisonal Authority i.e. respondent-4, the Inspector General/DIG, Lucknow Region Lucknow, vide order dated [11.3.2004]1.

7. Aggrieved by order dated [11.3.2004]1 passed by Revisional Authority i.e. respondent-4, order dated [29.10.2011]1 passed by Appellate Authority, i.e. respondent-5 and order dated [29.10.2011]1 passed by Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent-6, Petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 1716 of 2014 (Kailash Chand v. State of U.P. and others) before Tribunal Lucknow. Claim Petition came to be dismissed by Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 13.2.2017.

8. Thus feeling aggrieved by judgment and order dated 13.2.2017 passed by Tribunal as well as orders dated [11.3.2014]1 passed by Revisional Authority i.e. respondent-4, order dated 3.12.2012 passed by Appellate Authority, i.e. respondent-5 and order dated [29.10.2011]1 passed by Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent-6, Petitioner has now approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

9. Tribunal while dismissing claim petition filed by Petitioner concluded that services of Petitioner was terminated by placing reliance upon Rule 20(3) of Rules, 2008 as amended in 2009 which is perfectly just and legal. Tribunal further concluded that contention raised on behalf of Petitioner that he was unwell and therefore could not participate in training sessions on three days c