Short Note : 1. The petitioner was a Police constable having been appointed by the Superintendent of Police, Sarguja in the Police Department, Madhya Pradesh. In the year 1965, he was confirmed in that capacity. He obtained casual leave from November 19, 1971 to November 26, 1971. Thereafter he absented himself from duty. Two notices were issued to him by the Department to return, but they were not complied with. Eventually on March 23, 1972, the petitioner returned and wanted to resume duty. However, since, in the meantime, his name had been struck off the roll in accordance with Regulation No.190 of the Police Regulations, he was not allowed to resume duty. Subsequently, he is re-employed in the same capacity. He wanted continuity of service as he was in employment. Held: The learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that as no enquiry was held, his removal from service was ultra vires as it was in contravention of the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. It is true that under the Regulation the petitioner's name is to be struck off, but that could not be done without giving opportunity to be heard, because, in a sense, it was removal and it cannot be denied that it was a punishment for overstaying. Jaishanker v. State. AIR 1966 SC 492 , relied on. 2. It was contended that a second notice was not given to him as is required by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. This Court does not find any such notice having been given to the petitioner. The provisions of Article 311 (2) were therefore, violated. Union of India v. K. Rajappa, AIR 1970 SC 748 , relied on Petition allowed.