JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J. This writ application has been filed by the sole petitioner for quashing of the order dated 6.2.1985 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 6) by which the petitioner has been dismissed from his service. Prayer is also for quashing the orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 8 to the writ application. Annexure 5 is the appellate order by which the order of dismissal has been confirmed and Annexure 8 is the order by which the memorial of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner had been appointed as a constable in Bihar Police service and as a major punishment the petitioner has been dismissed from his service as per the order as contained in Annexure 3 referred to above. The charges which formed the basis for dismissal are as follows :- (i) On 11.5.1977 while he was posted in the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Munger Sadar, he abstained from service without seeking any leave for 130 days from 11.5.1977. (ii) On 25.10.1977 when he was posted at Alipur Barhara Camp he again abstained from service for 368 days without taking any leave. 3. The enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Lakhisarai, according to whom, the petitioner was guilty of the charges. Accepting the findings of guilt the Respondent Superintendent of Police, Munger after issuance of second show cause notice to the petitioner dismissed the petitioner from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Director General of Police, Bhagalpur but the same was rejected. The further memorial filed before respondent no. 2, the Director General of Police, was also of no avail. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceedings before the Conducting Officer. It hall been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had no notice of the departmental proceedings and therefore, he could not participate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for State submits that the notices were sent to him through Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur and as such, there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of principles of natural justice as well as Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. On the other hand, the learned counsel for State submits that the notices were sent to him through Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur and as such, there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of principles of natural justice as well as Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. I find from the records that though it has been specifically stated in paragraph 9 of the writ application that the petitioner had no knowledge about the proceedings before the Conducting Officer but there is no specific assertion in the counter affidavit by making any clear averment that notices, in fact, were served on the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that he had taken this plea both before the punishing authority as well as the appellate authority, but, as it appears from appellate order, this aspect has not been dealt with at all. If the assertion of the petitioner is found to be correct, then the departmental proceedings with be per se illegal and cannot form the basis for any punishment. 5. Another aspect of natural justice is that even if it is found that the notices have been served on the delinquent but for reasons beyond his control he could not participate in the proceedings still then a fair opportunity is required to be given for fulfilling the requirements of procedural justice. If the plea of the petitioner that his absence was because of some mental ailments, then the authorities concerned should have examined this aspect and recorded a specific finding with regard to the truthfulness of this plea. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the medical certificates and other materials substantiating his defence are already on record but those have not been examined in their proper perspective. I do not find any finding on this score as well in the impugned orders. 6. A reference to the appellate order (Annexure 5) reveals that while upholding the order of dismissal the appellate authority has taken into account the fact that the petitioner was found absent from service during the period 1980 to 1984. Accordingly he inferred that the petitioner had no intention to remain in service. This is not a relevant consideration for upholding order of dismissal because this was not a charge in the present proceedings. Accordingly he inferred that the petitioner had no intention to remain in service. This is not a relevant consideration for upholding order of dismissal because this was not a charge in the present proceedings. I have been told that in a subsequent departmental proceedings with regard to this charge, the petitioner has been exonerated on a finding that during this period he was under treatment in Ranchi mental hospital. 7. For the reasons aforesaid I quash the orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 8 to the writ application. The case is remanded to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur (Respondent no. 4), who is the appellate authority in the present case, with a direction that after giving due notice to the petitioner, specific findings should be recorded on the issue stated hereinbefore and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is expected that necessary orders will be passed by the appellate authority within four months from today. 8. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed in part. There will be no order as to cost.