Judgment R. N. Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner is a former police constable, who was dismissed from service after an ex-parte departmental enquiry by order dated 21-10-1987 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. 2. The short question for consideration in this writ application is as to whether the order of dismissal is void and in-operative, being in contravention of article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch has the petitioner was denied the opportunity to contest the departmental proceeding in breach of relevant police Manual Rules. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1984 and was sent to police training School, Mathnagar in 1986 to undergo basis training. He left the training School without information/or permission from the higher Officer, as a result of which he was put under suspension and ordered to be sent to Jamshedpur where he bad initially joined The petitioner reported his arrival to Rail District Jamshedpur on 1-1-1987. The petitioner again on 21-7-1987 fled away without giving any information to his superior officer. According to the case of the petitioner he became mentally deranged while under going training. In that state of mental condition, he any how reached his village home Bariarpur which was 25 miles from the training School. His cognitive faculty was seriously impaired and he was incapable for knowing of the nature of act, he was doing. His family members took him to Kankey mental Hospital for treatment. On recovery, when he went to Jamshedpur to resume his duty, he was told that he has already been removed from service vide departmental proceeding No.51/87 on the charge of un-authorised absence from duty. He was also informed that he had himself received a copy of the order of dismissal in 1987 some time after the order had been passed. As he was suffering from acute mental disorder during that period, he was not aware of the same. He obtained a copy of the order relatiug to his dismissal as contained in district Order No.998/8 dated 21-10-1987 (Annexure-2 ). 4. The petitioner has asserted that it is patently obviously from the facts of the record that the Constitutional mandate as contained in Artile 311 of the Constitution of India have been grossly violating both in drawing of the proceeding and conducting the departmental enquiry and thereby depriving the petitioner of reasonable opportunity to defend him. 4. The petitioner has asserted that it is patently obviously from the facts of the record that the Constitutional mandate as contained in Artile 311 of the Constitution of India have been grossly violating both in drawing of the proceeding and conducting the departmental enquiry and thereby depriving the petitioner of reasonable opportunity to defend him. Rule 843 of Bihar Police Manual enjoins upon disciplinary authority to get enquiry held by the Superintendent of police of the native district of a police Officer, if he absents from duty without leave or over stays leave, before initiating any departmental proceeding against him. This rule was followed in breach in the present caae. The relevant police Manual Rule 843 reads as follows : "punishment for absence from leave : wilful overstayal of leave or absence crom duty without leave shall be treated as mis-behavious and after obtaining the explanation of the officer concerned proceedings shall invariably be drawn up and departmental punishment inflicted. If after explanation, it appears that a Police officer had remained absent from duty due to any sufficient reason he shall be granted leave admissible to him for that period. If it is proved that he has violated the rules at his own will, he can be inflicted with any punishment as provided in Rule 824. The police Officer who shall be absent from duty without permission shall be liable under section 9 of Act VIII of 1895. Such action, however, should be taken only in special circumstances. As a rule, whenever on officer does not return in time on duty, enquiries shall be made by the Superintendent/commandant within one week from the S P. of his native district, and should there appear that the officer has not returned to his duty in time for good reasons, he should be suspended and departmental proceeding should be undertaken as per rule". 5. The petitioner further complaint, apart from violation of Rule 834, the disciplinary authority has also balantantly dis-regarded the procedure laid down in Appendix 49 (1) (2) of the Police Manual Rule. 5. The petitioner further complaint, apart from violation of Rule 834, the disciplinary authority has also balantantly dis-regarded the procedure laid down in Appendix 49 (1) (2) of the Police Manual Rule. The said Rule provides that before a departmental proceeding is formally drawn up, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges ; a copy of the charge shall he communicated to the person together with a statement of allegation on which its charged based. The delinquent is entitled under the said Rule to put in written statement in his defence The aforesaid Rule can be dispensed with only wiien it is made out (hit it is not practicable to communicate with the charged officer. But even then, rule provides sufficient safeguard against any arbitrariness inasmuch as there is must be material to show that the attempts had been made to communicate with the charge officer at the address given ia his service book through the Superintendent of his home district. A copy of the charge was not served upon the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner was not available at the district head quarter nor his vihere-abouts were known to the disciplinary authority. In such a situation, as required under rules, the disciplinary authority should have communicated the charge and other documents through the Superintendent of Police, Mungher. 6. The enquiry officer has observed in his finding that inspite of efforts, the pstition could not be traced The proceeding file does not record that attempts had been made to communicate with the charge person at the addressee given in his service book through the Superintendent of his home district. 7. The next substantial grounds taken in the writ petition is that the enquiry officer in utter haste did not even communicate she date fixed lor examination of the witnesses and production of documents In this connection, police orders No.109/111 has been referred to viith enjoins the conducting officer to ensure thai the accused has acknowledge the relevant copy of the order sheet regarding examination of the witnesses 8. The petitioner was admittedly dismissed without calling upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment nor the enquiry officer report was supplied to him before the order was passed. The report was supplied to him along with the order of dismissal. The petitioner was admittedly dismissed without calling upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment nor the enquiry officer report was supplied to him before the order was passed. The report was supplied to him along with the order of dismissal. Reliance has been placed on Rule 166 of the Boards Miscellaneous Rules reads as follows : " (ii) After the enquiry against the charged Officer has been completed and after the authority competent to impose penalty has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to penalty to be imposed, the accused officer should be supplied with a copy the report of the Enquiring authority and ba called upon to show cause within two weeks against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted". 9. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the past record of the petitioner without including the same in the charge which constitutes violation of Rule 826 of the Police Manual Rules which is in the following terms : "the punishment awarded should be in confirmity with the gravity of the offence with which the Officer is charged and offences involving moral turpitude shall be carefully discriminated from smaller wrong. It should also be forne in mud that previous record of service of the officer concerned, if it is not already included in the charge of the proceeding shall not be taken into account for determining the quantum of punishment". 10. The petitioner had submitted a review petition by registered post with A/d on 27-4-1989 to the Superintendent of Police. Railways, Jamshedpur praying for revocation of the dimissal order. The review petition should have been addressed to the Inspector-General of Police, Bihar under Rule 853 (A) of the Police Manual Rules. The Superintendent of Police did not forward the petition of the petitioner the petitioner sent two petition to d. I G. Railways in July and August, 1989. The Superintendent of Police, railways in his comments to tha D J. G. has recommended that the representation be rejected, The D. I. G. has not passed any order as yet. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts and grounds taken in the writ petition have not been specifically controverted. The respondents have taken technical and evasive stand in the counter affidavit. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the facts and grounds taken in the writ petition have not been specifically controverted. The respondents have taken technical and evasive stand in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that sence the order of dismissal was passed in 1987 and no appeal was preferred by the petitioner, the writ application is it to be dismissed. It has been denied that the petitioner had become mentally ill in January, 87. It has also been denied that he has recovered from dis-order on 19-2-1989. The respondents. have admitted in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that a copy of the charge was not received by the petitioner but it was done deliberately and the petitioner was also aware of the charge levelled against him. It is also admitted that the petitioner did not appear or contest the proceeding. It has lastly been asserted that the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 12. The respondents have produced the proceeding file as directed by this Court vide order dated 4-4-1991. The record of the proceedings shows that it was brougbt to the notice of the Superintendent of Rail police, jamshedpur that the petitioner was in the inhabit of absconding from duty. He has reported on 21-7-1987 in the office of the Rail Police, Jamshedpur but was found absent during roll call on 30-7-1987. The Superintendent of police passed order on 12-8-1987 that departmental proceeding be initiated. The charges were framed and approved by the Superintendent Rail police, jamsbedpur (respondent No, 4) on 17-8-1987. The enquiry was entrusted to Railway Sub-Inspector of Police, Tatanagar. The enquiry Officer on 19-8-1987 directed that the copy of the charge be served upon the petitioner asking him to submit his first explanation. A constable was deputed tor this purpose. The said constable reported that the petitioner was not available. The enquiry officer under took to search to the petitioner at his own level. In the order sheet dated 10-9-1987, it has been mention d that the petitioner cculd not be traced. The proceeding was nevertheless taken up and one witness was examined. One more witness was examined on 26-9-1987. The proceeding was closed on 30-9-1987. The report of the enquiry officer was placed before respondent No.4 on 21-10-1987. In the order sheet dated 10-9-1987, it has been mention d that the petitioner cculd not be traced. The proceeding was nevertheless taken up and one witness was examined. One more witness was examined on 26-9-1987. The proceeding was closed on 30-9-1987. The report of the enquiry officer was placed before respondent No.4 on 21-10-1987. He agreed with the rinding recorded by the enquiry officer and ordered dismissal of the petition with effect from 21-10-1987. 13. As stated earlier the respondents have not traversed the allegations of violation of Rules 843, 846, 826 and Rule 166 of the Board Miscellaneous rules. The petitioner was denied any opportunity to appear in the proceeding. No effective steps was taken for the service of notice of the proceeding. It is prominently evident from the record of the proceeding that the entire disciplinary proceeding was marred by serious procedural lapses culminating in passing of an invalid order of dismissal. The enquiry officer and disciplinary authority (respondent No.4) were completely oblivious of the material provisions of Rule 843 of the police Manual Rule referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. There has been blatent infringment of Article 311 (2)of the Constitution of India. The dismissal of the petitioner from the Bihar police Force, therefore, is null and void. The order of dismissal as contained in Annexure-2 is quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 14. In the result, this writ application is allowed as consequence of which petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits which he would have been entitled had he been in service. The respondents are directed to conduct the proceeding afresh after proper notice to the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order for costs. Writ application allowed.