M.C., J.—This writ petition has been filed quashing the order (Anx.6) of orders the Superintendent of Police, Banswara (Respondent No. 2) dated June, 3. 1987 by which the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect the order (Anx. 8) December 4, 1987 by which his appeal has been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur (Respondent No. 3) and order (Anx. 9) dated July 11, 1988 by which his review petition has been dismissed by the Director General of police; Rajasthan, Jaipur. The facts of these case may be summarised thus. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a constable on probation for two years by order dated August 2, 1984 and his period of probation was extended by one year. He remained absent from duty on various dates. Charge-sheet (Annexure 4) was served upon him. After taking his reply and recording the evidence, he was dismissed from the service by the Superintendent of police, Banswara by his order dated June 3. 1987 (Anx. 6) He preferred appeal (Anx. 7) against this ord3r before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Udaipur. It was dismissed by him by his order dated December 4, 1987 (Anx. 8). His review petition was also dismissed by the Director General of Police by his order (Anx. 9). 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is clear from a bare perusal of the charge sheet (Anx.4) that it has been issued on the basis of the absence from duty on different dates, extra-ordinary leave had been granted in respect of each absence and it cannot, therefore, be said that the absence of the petitioner was wilful. He also contended that in view of the circular (Annexure 10) dated February 28, 1982 of the Director General of Police Rajasthan, Jaipur, no charge-sheet could be given on the ground of absence from duty for which leave was duly sanctioned, and for this reason no reply has been filed by any respondent. 4. The learned Assistant Government Advocate tried his best to support the orders (Anxs. 6, 8 and 9) 5. No. respondent has filed reply to the writ petition. Admittedly, it is mentioned in the charge sheet itself that E.O.L. (Extra-ordinary leave) has been granted in respect of each absence much prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet. It has also been specifically stated so in the writ petition. 6, 8 and 9) 5. No. respondent has filed reply to the writ petition. Admittedly, it is mentioned in the charge sheet itself that E.O.L. (Extra-ordinary leave) has been granted in respect of each absence much prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet. It has also been specifically stated so in the writ petition. As already mentioned above, reply, to the writ petition has not been filed by any respon-dent. During arguments, this fact was not disputed. The granting of leave, of whatever nature it may be, amounts to considering the absence as justified or at any rate the condonation and regularisation of the absence. After such regula-risation and condonation, no disciplinary action lies. It was open to the Superintendent of police Banswara (Respondent No. 2) to have refused to grant leave to the petitioners. When once leave has been granted, it cannot be said that the petitioner had absented himself from duty and thereby made himself liable for punishment. The very purpose of granting leave was to regularise the petitioners absence. Thereafter it was not open to him to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner for his absence from duty. 6. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur issued circular order (Anx. 10) as early as on February 28, 1982. It would be best to quote it here in extenso. Thereafter it was not open to him to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner for his absence from duty. 6. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur issued circular order (Anx. 10) as early as on February 28, 1982. It would be best to quote it here in extenso. It runs as under: - ^^gekjs ns[kus esa dqN ,sls ekeys vk;s gS] ftuesa v/khuLFk iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa ds fo:) M~;qVh ls vukf/k—r vuqifLFkfr ds vkjksiksa ij vFkok iwoZ dh vuqifLFkfr ds vkpj.k lEcU/kh vkjksiksa ij muds fo:) vuqkklfud dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh xbZA ,d vkSj rks muds fo:) foHkkxh; tkWp pyrh jgh vkSj nwljh vkSj lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dh vuqifLFkfr vof/k dsk ;k rks mls vkjksfir djus ls iwoZ gh vFkok foHkkxh; tkap ds vfUre fu.kZd ls iwoZ fu;ec) dj fn;k x;k vkSj foHkkxh; deZpkjh dk;Zokgh ds ifj.kke Lo:i mls n.M Hkh iznku dj fn;k x;kA ¼2½ bl izdkj dh izfØ;k dks oS/kkfud ,oa fu;eksa ds vuqdwy ugha dgk tk ldrk D;ksafd tc ml vuqifLFkfr vof/k ftlds vk/kkj ij lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dks vkjksfir fd;k tkdj mlds fo:0 vuqkklfud dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gS] dks fu;fer gh dj fn;k x;k rks foHkkxh; tkap ds vkjksi dk ewy vk/kkj Lor% gh lekIr gks tkrk gSA bl izdkj ds dbZ izdj.kksa esa izlkfjr n.M vknskksa dk U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh nh tk pqdh gS rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk bl izdkj dh dk;Zokgh dks voS/kkfud ,oa fu;e fo:) djkj fn;k x;k gSA U;k;ky;ksa }kjk izlkfjr QSlyksa esa O;ä fd;k fd ,d ckj vuqifLFkfr dh vof/k dk vodkk Loh—r djus ds ipkr~ mlh vof/k ds lEcU/k esa vuqkklfud dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk fof/k ,oa fu;eksa ds izfrdwy gSA ¼3½ vuqifLFkfr ds vkjksiksa ij nks"kh deZpkjh ds fo:) l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk vuqkklfud dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gS] fdUrq ,slh voLFkk esa vuqifLFkfr vof/k dk fu;eu jsX;qyjkbZtsku foHkkxh; tkWp ds vfUre fu.kZ; ds lkFk gh fd;k tkuk pkfg,A;g lqfufpr dj ysuk gksxk fd vkjksfir dh vuqifLFkfr vof/k dk QSlyk foHkkxh; tkWp ds vfUre fu.kZ; ls iwoZ ugha fd;k tk pqdk gS] vU;Fkk mijksä vuqlkj foHkkxh; tkap dk vfUre fu.kZ; fof/k fofgu djkj fn;k tk ldrk gSA ¼4½ vr% leLr fu;qfä ,oa vuqkkldh; vf/kdkfj;ksa dk /;ku bl fLFkfr dh vkSj vk—"V fd;k tkdj vknsk gS fd vuqifLFkfr ds ekeyksa ij lEcfU/kr deZpkjh ds fo:) vuqkklfud dk;Zokgh izkjEHk djus ls iwoZ ;g lqfufpr dj fy;k tkos fd ml vof/k dk QSlyk ugha fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk nkkZ;h xbZ vfu;ferrk ugha gksus ikosaaA ,lMh@& KkupUn fla?koh egkfujh{kd iqfyl] jktLFkku] t;iqj It is binding on all officers of the police department of Rajasthan Reference of Navnit Lal v. Income Tax Appellate Commissioner, may be made here. If the respondent No. 2 would have complied with it he would not have served the charge-sheet (Anx. 4) upon the petitioner. 7. The order (Anx. 8) of the Deputy Inspector General of police. Udaipur Range, Udaipur date December 4, 1987, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner does not contain any reason. It has not at all discussed any point raised by the petitioner in his lengthy memo of appeal (Anx. 7). It is not a speaking order. It has been observed in V.B. Sarraf v. New Education, Institute, (2) of follows:- "17. The above decision referred to in the case of Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. V. Union of India, (1966) 1 SC 466 : ( AIR 1966 SC 671 ) : where it has been observed that the practice of the executive authority dismissing prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of rule of law. Similar observations have been made in the case of Mahabir Jute Mill vs. Shibbon Lal, AIR 1975 SC 2057 at p. 2060. The same view was also reiferated in Siemen Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1985 and Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1355 at p. 1958, paras 18, 19 and it was observed that where an authority made an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reason in support of the order it made. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case, of Rangnath v. Daulat Rao, (1975) 1 SCC 686 at p. 690, para 7; ( AIR 1975 SC 2146 at p. 2149), Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. This well settled principle will undoubtedly apply to orders made by a Court in disposing of writ applications." 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The order (Anxs. 6, 8 and 9) are set aside The petitioner is re-instated back with all consequental benefits.