IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that one who seeks equity must do equity, and the conduct of a member of a disciplined force in waiving rights and non-participation in proceedings can render procedural irregularities inconsequential.

JUDGMENT

1. The writ petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order of termination dated 01.09.2016 whereby the petitioner was inflicted with major penalty of removal from service, pursuant to ex parte Departmental Proceedings. Against the order of termination, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal assailing the same on the ground of denial of opportunity of being heard which came to be dismissed by order dated 06.03.2017, affirming the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. In the course of hearing of the instant matter, the records of the said departmental proceedings were also requisitioned from the respondent authority.

2. As it appears from the pleadings and submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner, the main ground is the alleged denial of opportunity of hearing being afforded to the petitioner and consequently, contentions have also been raised as to the arbitrariness and irregularity in the proceedings, especially on the factum of service of show cause notice and non-supply of the enquiry report.

3. The respondents on the other hand have outlined the track record of the petitioner and have from the records endeavoured to show that there has been no denial of rights as alleged and that in fact, even after due notice, the petitioner voluntarily and with full knowledge did not participate in the said enquiry, and as such no prejudice has been caused.

4. Mr. K.C. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings against the petitioner was drawn up even before the stage of issuance of show cause notice, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 22.01.2016, prior to the issuance of show cause notice and statement of allegations dated 18.02.2016. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the showcause notice dated 18.02.2016, was ever served upon the petitioner. It has also been contended that even the newspaper publication dated 03.08.2016, directing the petitioner to appear was published after the completion of the enquiry, and a copy of the enquiry report was never served upon the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the proceedings were vitiated on account of serious procedural lapses which has resulted in grave injustice being caused. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments in aid of the petitioners' case, on the points of the essentiality the service of a show cause notice, the supply of documents and list of witnesses, apart from the appointment of an Enquiry Officer before commencement of the proceedings and the non-supply of the Enquiry Report.

i) UOI v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar (1998) 7 SCC 569

ii) State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna (2001) 2 SCC 330

iii) State of Uttaranchal v. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236

iv) State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha (2010) 2 SCC 772

5. Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the State respondents in reply, has submitted that this is a case where the petitioner has voluntarily abandoned his duties/service, and this fact is clearly reflected from his long and un-authorized absence of a period of 807 days, which ought to be viewed strictly, as the petitioner is a policeman and a member of a disciplined force. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition by suppressing certain facts with a view to mislead this Court and that the records as produced will make it amply clear that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity which was not availed by him.

6. The learned GA submits that as per office records the petitioner on falling ill on 17.06.2014 was sent for medical check-up to the Civil Hospital, Jowai and thereafter was referred to Nazareth Hospital, Shillong as he was suffering from fatty liver, and after being referred, never reported for duty thereafter, nor did he make a single communication with his Department regarding his absence from duty, or make a single effort to resume his duties. It is contended that there was nothing that could have prevented the