ORDER

1. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

“(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 19.3.2001 (Annexure P-8), appellate order dated 21.2.2002 (Annexure P-10) and order of mercy appeal dated 26.10.2002 (Annexure P-11) and direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Constable with all consequential benefit.

(B) The Respondents may also be directed to produce entire record pertains to departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

(C) Any other relief or reliefs, order or orders, direction or directions which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

(D) Cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Establishment of Madhya Pradesh Police. On 13.9.1997, petitioner while posted as Guard at Syndicate Bank did not turn up for duty, therefore, absence was recorded in Roj Namacha. Thereafter, between the period 13.9.1997 to 26.11.1997 for total 75 days, he remained absent without sanction of leave. Thereafter, streak of absence continued and he remained absence on duty between the period 13.9.1997 to 6.1.1999 for total 335 days on difference occasions, therefore, charge-sheet was issued by Superintendent of Police, Bhopal on 14.9.1999. One Officer, SDO(P), Bairagarh was appointed as Enquiry Officer.

3. It appears that after service of summons over the petitioner twice, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer. He abjured his guilt and participated in the enquiry. After detailenquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report before the authority concerned and found the charge of unauthorized absence of petitioner for total 335 days between the period 13.9.1997 to 6.1.1999 on different intervals, as proved. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 2.3.2001 and after giving opportunity of hearing, passed the impugned order dated 19.3.2001, by which the petitioner was removed / terminated from the service w.e.f. 19.3.2001. Said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, Bhopal in an appeal, but vide order dated 21.2.2002 said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, mercy appeal preferred by petitioner before the Director General of Police also got dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2002, therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the departmental enquiry, petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and thereby, caused illegality and arbitrariness. Impugned order was passed in a slipshod manner without going into details.

5. Disciplinary Authority in the course of passing the order of termination has not applied its mind independently and already made up its mind before taking reply from the petitioner. Such act is contrary to the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in the matter of State of Orissa & Ors. v. Chandra Nandi, (2019) 4 SCC 357, Kamta Prasad Sharma v. State of M.P. & Ors. ILR 2022 MP 1846 and Purshottam Lvne v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., 2014 (3) MPLJ 704.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer and submitted that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner in departmental enquiry and since petitioner remained absent for almost a year on different intervals, looking to the nature of duties, said allegations were found to be serious and after due enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing, impugned order has been petitioner. In fact petitioner did not cooperate in the enquiry and tried to protract the matter. No cogent documents were provided by the petitioner regarding his unauthorized absence for such long period at different intervals. When his streak of remaining a