1. The petitioner, widow of Late Jagdish Singh Masram (a Constable working in 8th Battalion SAF, Chhindwara) has filed this petition challenging the order dated 30.6.2007 and 29.10.2011 passed by the respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Briefly stated, the facts narrated by the petitioner are that Jagdish Singh Masram while returning back to Chhindwara on a motor-cycle on 31.1.2006, met with an accident and suffered serious injuries. After a prolonged treatment, one leg of Jagdish Singh Masram was imputed, FIR and medical certificate showing the same are filed as (Annexure P-1) and (Annexure P-2). It is further stated that Jagdish Singh Masram (petitioner's husband) suffered an internal head injury in the said accident. Petitioner's husband ultimately lost his mental balance and committed suicide on 10.7.2008. During the course of treatment, petitioner's husband was required to be shifted from one district to another and because of the same, he could not join the service. It is averred that since Jagdish Singh Masram was upset because of accident, he could not inform the department about the accident in writing. However, the department was aware about the accident and physical condition of the employee.

3. It is admitted that number of requisitions were send on the official address of petitioner's husband but none of such requisitions were replied by him. No notice at the permanent address of petitioner's husband was send nor any such notice was ever published in the newspaper. The petitioner has filed the charge-sheet (Annexure P-3) and contended that notices of departmental inquiry were never served upon her husband. The show cause notice dated 30.6.2007 was served on the petitioner's husband and thereafter by order dated 30.6.2007, he was removed from service. Jagdish Singh Masram died leaving behind three children and the factum of his dismissal was gathered by present petitioner when the local MLA received a communication from the department that her husband was dismissed from service. Thereafter, she filed the present petition.

4. Mr. B.K. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental inquiry was conducted behind the back of Jagdish Singh Masram. No notice of said departmental inquiry was ever served on him. The punishment order is extremely disproportionate and runs contrary to the judgments of this Court, reported in 2013(2) JLJ 185=2013(2) MPHT 237, (Ganesh Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and another).

5. Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate on the other hand contended that the petitioner has categorically admitted that her husband never informed about his ailment or incapacity to join services of the department. No leave application was ever preferred by him. Jagdish Singh Masram being a Constable of a disciplined force, was obliged to inform about his ailment. He remained unauthorisingly absent from 6.3.2006 till 30.7.2007. Before this incident also the employee was punished on five occasions because of his act of unauthorised absent. In the inquiry full reasonable and effective opportunity to put forth his defence was provided to the employee. Reliance is placed on the notice dated 10.4.2007 which contains the signature of Jagdish Singh Masram. As a token of receipt of notices, Jagdish Singh Masram had put his signature on 15.4.2007.

6. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

8. This Court in Ganesh Kumar Sharma (supra), considered Regulations 64 and 266 of MP Police Regulations. By taking into account Clause (iii) of Regulation 226, this Court opined that petitioner therein received appreciations on several occasions. He also received awards several times. Considering this aspect, the departmental authority was directed to reexamine the case of appellant therein vis-a-vis Clauses (iii) and (v) of Regulation 226 afresh.

9. It is apposite to quote Regulation 226 (i)(a) of the MP Police Regulatio