JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This is a Regular Second Appeal under pre-amended section )00 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 20-ii-1978 of Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the decree and judgment dated 1 ?«8-1978 of Senior Sub-Judge, Kangra, was confirmed and the suit of the appellant-plaintiff, Sh. Dhani Ram, was dismissed. Sh Dhani Ram had filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 7-9-i?73 dismissing him from service as constable of Himachal Pradesh Police Department was illegal, void, inoperative and against the provisions of the constitution, Police Rules and the principles of natural justice. He also prayed that he be treated to be in continuous service and entitled to all the consequential benefits thereof The State of Himachal Pradesh resisted the suit. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record Pandit Om Parkash, appearing on behalf of Sh. Dhani Ram, has raised the following two points : — (i) The termination order dated 7-9 1973 is bad as the provisions of Rule 16.24 (i) (ix). Volume II of Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") as applicable to the appellant were not complied with inasmuch as no personal hearing as envisaged under this Rule was given to Sh, Dhani Ram ; and (ii) The dismissal order dated 7-9-1973 is bad inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 16.24 (2) of the Rules were not duly complied with as the order initiating the ex-parte proceedings was passed mechanically by the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, without satisfying himself that inspite of notice to attend, Sh Dhani Ram was deliberately refusing to attend without due cause 3. Before I deal with these two points, I place on record the admitted facts which emerge from the pleadings, evidence and record of the case. 4. Sh. Dhani Ram who had his constabulary No 245 was serving in District Kangra at Dharamshala He was permitted to proceed on three days special leave from 15-11-1972. Instead of reporting for duty on !9 11-1972, he sent telegram dated 18-11-1972 to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, requesting him for extension of leave for a period of ten days on the ground of illness of his father. The leave was not granted to him and he returned to duty on 26-11-1972. Instead of reporting for duty on !9 11-1972, he sent telegram dated 18-11-1972 to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, requesting him for extension of leave for a period of ten days on the ground of illness of his father. The leave was not granted to him and he returned to duty on 26-11-1972. He produced medical certificate in respect of the illness of his father and requested expost facto sanction of the leave. 5. Sh. Dhani Ram was again granted seven days casual leave with effect from 6-1-1973 He did not resume duty on the expiry of his leave, that is, on 14-1-1973 and sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Police for extension of leave for a period of twenty days on the ground of his personal illness. He did not join his duties after twenty days and again sent a telegram for extension of leave for a further period of thirty days. When the matter of grant of extension of leave was placed before the Superintendent of Police on 3-2 1973, he ordered departmental enquiry against him under the Punjab Police Rules for his absence including the previous absence for the period from 19-1 l-lv72 to 25-11-1972. The enquiry was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sh. Moti Singh. 6. The Enquiry Officer summoned Sh Dhani Ram for 26-2-1973 vide communication No. 18/BB dated 8-2-1973. Sh. Dhani Ram received this communication which is Ex. P-H and Ex, D-2 on the Enquiry file, Ex. D-l, but did not care to attend the enquiry proceedings It is correct that Sh Sant Ram, who was Lamberdar of his village, had reported on the back of the communication dated 8-2-W73 that Sh. Dhani Ram was ill and unable to move. The Enquiry Officer fixed another date for the enquiry on 20-4-1973 and sent intimation of this date to Sh. Dhani Ram by his registered letter dated 5-4-1973. An office copy of this communication is Ex P-N on the enquiry file and the acknowledgment card is Ex. P-O. In the meantime, the Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 18-3-973 instructed Sh. Dhani Ram to get himself medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Dharamshala but he failed. Admittedly, he did receive the communication dated 18-3-1973 of the Superintendent of Police. This communication is Ex. P-A. It was clearly mentioned in this communication that if Sh. P-O. In the meantime, the Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 18-3-973 instructed Sh. Dhani Ram to get himself medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Dharamshala but he failed. Admittedly, he did receive the communication dated 18-3-1973 of the Superintendent of Police. This communication is Ex. P-A. It was clearly mentioned in this communication that if Sh. Dhani Ram failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, on 20-4-1973 or get himself medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer, Dharamshala, within the said date, the Enquiry Officer would proceed to place his case before the Superintendent of Police for holding ex-parte proceedings Despite this, Sh Dhani Ram maintained his silence. It was on 27-4-1973 that the Enquiry Officer, Sh. Moti Singh made a report to the Superintendent of Police that Sh. Dhani Ram did not attend the enquiry deliberately though he was duly served with a notice of dates of enquiry. The Superintendent of Police passed the order on 11-5-1973 that -May be proceeded against ex-parte". The ex-parte proceedings were held for two charges, namely, (i) absence from duty during the period 19-11-1972 to 25-11-1972 ; and (ii) absence from duty for the period from 14-1-1973 onwards. 7. The Enquiry Officer recorded statements of as many as eight prosecution witnesses and gave his report on 30-6-1973. He absolved Sh. Dhani Ram of the first charge but held him guilty of the second charge. 8. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police gave notice to show cause dated 7-8-1973 to Sh. Dhani Ram proposing the penalty of dismissal and affording to him an opportunity to make representation, if any, within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice The notice was sent by registered post which was admittedly received by Sh Dhani Ram on 17-8-1973. The acknowledgement card duly singed by him is Ex D-4 on record. When no reply to the show cause notice was received from Sh Dhani Ram, the Superintendent of Police proceeded to pass the final order of dismissal dated 7-9-1973. 9. The acknowledgement card duly singed by him is Ex D-4 on record. When no reply to the show cause notice was received from Sh Dhani Ram, the Superintendent of Police proceeded to pass the final order of dismissal dated 7-9-1973. 9. As both the points raised by Pandit Om Prakash pertain to Rule 16.24 (1) (ix) and 16.24 (2), these provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:— "16.24 (1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries:— (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xx xxx xxx (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) xxx xxx xxx (vi) xxx xxx xxx (vii) xxx xxx xxx (viii) xxx xxx xxx (ix) No order of dismissal or reduction in rank shall be passed by an officer empowered to dismiss a police officer or reduce him in rank until that officer has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, provided that this shall not apply— (a) where a police officer is dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or (b) where the officer empowered to dismiss him or reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that officer in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that police officer an opportunity of showing cause. Before an order of dismissal or reduction in rank is passed, the officer to be punished shall be produced before the officer empowered to punish him, and shall be informed of the charges proved against him, and called upon to show cause why an order of dismissal or reduction in rank should not be passed. Any representation that he may make shall be recorded, shall form part of the record of the case and shall be taken into consideration by the officer empowered to punish him before the final order is passed: Provided that if, owing to the complicated nature of the case or other sufficient reason to be recorded, the officer empowered to impose the punishment considers this procedure inappropriate, he may inform the officer to be punished in writing of the charges proved against him, and call upon him to show cause in writing why an order of dismissal or reduction in rank should not be passed. Any written representation received shall be placed on the record of the case and taken into consideration before the final order is passed. (2) (i) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) a Superintendent of Police or any officer of rank higher than Superintendent, may institute, or cause to be instituted, ex-parte proceedings in any case in which he is satisfied that the defaulter cannot be found or that inspite of notice to attend the defaulter is deliberately evading service or refusing to attend without due cause. (ii) The procedure in such ex-parte proceedings shall, as far as possible, conform to the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1): Provided that the defaulter shall be deemed— (a) not to have admitted the allegations contained in the summary of misconduct, and (b) to have entered a plea of not guilty to the charge Provided further that the defaulter, if he subsequently appears at any stage during the course of the proceedings shall not be entitled to claim de novo proceedings or to recall for cross-examination any witness whose evidence has already been recorded. He shall, however, be fully informed of the evidence which has led against him and shall be permitted to take notes thereof. He shall also be furnished with a copy of the summary of misconduct and of the charge or charges framed." 10. Pandit Om Parkash has vehemently argued that no personal hearing as envisaged under Rule 16 24 (I) (ix) of the Rules was given to Sh Dhani Ram- According to him, before the final order of dismissal could be passed, it was incumbent upon the Superintendent of Police to summon Sh. Dhani Ram before himself and to call upon Sh. Dhani Ram to show cause why the order of dismissal should not be passed against him after in forming him of the charges proved against him. Pandit Om Parkash has relied upon Siri Ram v The State of Punjab, 1967 SLR 678, wherein the order of termination was set aside on the ground of non-observance of the procedure prescribed in clause (ix) of Rule 1624 (1). 11. Pandit Om Parkash has relied upon Siri Ram v The State of Punjab, 1967 SLR 678, wherein the order of termination was set aside on the ground of non-observance of the procedure prescribed in clause (ix) of Rule 1624 (1). 11. Sh M S. Chandel, learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed this contention of Pandit Om Prakash and has urged that the rule is not mandatory and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it was not necessary to give personal hearing to Sh. Dhani Ram. The peculiar circumstances, according to him, were that Sh Dhani Ram was absenting from duty from 14-1-1973 and had not joined the enquiry despite the service of notices upon him. 12. It is correct that under Rule 16.24 (2) (ii) even in the case of ex-parte proceedings, the procedure prescribed under Rule 16.24 (1) has to be followed as far as possible. Personal hearing is definitely a step in the procedure prescribed under Rule 16.24 H) for holding a departmental enquiry to impose the penalty of dismissal. But, in my opinion, the words as far as possible make the provision only directory Therefore if no personal hearing was given to Sh. Dhani Ram, the order dated 7-9-1973 of dismissal is not vitiated. I am satisfied that in the present case no useful purpose would have been served by another notice to Sh Dhani Ram by the Superintendent of Police for his personal appearance. Sh. Dhani Ram would have maintained his silence as he did before. From the narration of facts given above, it is established on record that Sh. Dhani Ram was afforded proper opportunity to defend himself at different stages of the departmental proceedings. The case of Siri Ram v. The State of Punjab (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts. That was not a case of ex-parte proceedings. Moreover, it was found by the Court that though personal hearing was given to the petitioner in that case yet, it was a mere formality as the Superintendent of Police had already made up his mind to punish him as was apparent from the notice to show cause. 13. That was not a case of ex-parte proceedings. Moreover, it was found by the Court that though personal hearing was given to the petitioner in that case yet, it was a mere formality as the Superintendent of Police had already made up his mind to punish him as was apparent from the notice to show cause. 13. As regards the second point, the precise argument of Pandit Om Parkash is that the one line order of the superintendent of Police shows that he had not satisfied himself that any of the circumstances envisaged in Rule 16 24 (2) (i) existed before he ordered the ex parte proceedings. He has admitted that Sh. Dani Ram had not appeared before the Enquiry Officer despite service of notices of enquiry on him In reply to this argument, Sh. M. S. Chandel. learned Assistant Advocate General, has urged that the order of the Superintendent of Police should be read in conjunction with the report/note of the Deputy Superintendent of Police where in all the facts pertaining to service of notice and non-appearance of Sh Dhani Ram were clearly stated. I have gone through the note of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and all those papers which were placed before the Superintendent of Police to enable him to pass necessary orders in respect of holding of ex-parte proceedings. In my opinion, the Superintendent of Police had passed the order after satisfying himself that Sh. Dhani Ram was not appearing before the Enquiry Officer despite service of notices to attend. The Deputy Superintendent, in his note, had not proposed holding of ex parte enquiry but had left it to the Superintendent of Police either to keep the enquiry pending or to allow him to proceed ex-parte. As the Superintendent of Police had ordered ex parte proceedings to be held, it shows that he took an independent decision after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances on record. 14. In view of these findings, the appeal fails. It is dismissed and the decree and judgment dated 20-11-1976 of Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, is upheld. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as t o costs. Appeal dismissed.