Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21.6.2012 passed by learned writ Court in Writ Petition(s) No.994/2004 dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant who was a Constable in 26th Battalion, Special Armed Force (SAF) was given a conditional permission by communication dated 17.10.2001 (Annexure P-1) to appear in the examination for the recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector to be conducted by the Government of U.P. In the said permission/order itself, a condition was embodied that it can be cancelled in exigency of service.

3. The appellant was served with a charge-sheet (Annexure P-7) wherein it was alleged that the aforesaid permission dated 17.10.2001 was cancelled on 4.1.2002 and the said cancellation was specifically communicated to him and he was directed to undergo the training which was to be commenced from 2.1.2002 to 18.3.2002, but, the appellant despite having knowledge to the factum of cancellation of the permission proceeded for the aforesaid selection and did not obey the lawful order of his superior officers which amounts to gross misconduct.

4. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him and vide order dated 17.5.2002 (Annexure P-8), the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant found the charges to be proved and hence passed the punishment order of removal from services. The departmental appeal which was filed by the appellant by Deputy Inspector General of Police, SAF was also dismissed vide order dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure P-10) and thus a writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the orders of disciplinary as well as the appellate authority and prayed for its quashment with a further prayer that he be reinstated with full back wages.

5. The learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 21.6.2012. In this manner, this writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.

6. The contention of Shri D.K. Katare, learned counsel for the appellant is that withdrawal of the permission granted to the writ petitioner was never communicated to him and, therefore, he was not aware about passing of the cancellation of the permission and if that is the position, the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority dated 17.5.2002 (Annexure P-8) and appellate authority dated 6.9.2002 (Annexure P-10) deserve to be set aside and for same reason the order of learned writ Court dated 21.6.2012 be also set aside. In this context, learned counsel has invited our attention to Annexure R-4 dated 4.1.2002 which is the relevant entry of the Roznamcha wherein the letter of cancellation which was sent to him was unserved on account of non-availability of the appellant. In this regard, our attention has been drawn to Single Bench decision of this Court which has been decided by one of us (A.K. Shrivastava, J.) S.P. Tiwari v. Union of India and others [2007(1) JLJ 333].

7. An alternative submission has also been propounded by him that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the aforesaid cancellation order was in the knowledge of the writ petitioner-appellant, since the absence was only for 18 days, therefore, taking a harsh step the dry bread which is without butter of the appellant should not have been snatched by the discplinary authority and the appellate authority. Further it has been argued by him that the services of the appellant are governed by M.P. Police Regulations which are having statutory force and by inviting our attention to regulation 226 it has been submitted that normally the punishment of dismissal from services should not have been passed and this order should be exercised in exceptional cases.

8. On the other hand Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Deputy Advocate General argued in support of the impugned order passed by learned writ Court and has also placed reli