JUDGMENT 1. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 26.8.82 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City as also order Annexure-5 dated 13.12.82 issued by the Office of Inspector General of Police Rajasthan. First order relates to his discharge from service and the second order relates to rejection of his prayer for reinstatement. 2. Case set up by the petitioner is that he was selected for appointment as Police Constable in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974. He was appointed as Constable (Civil Police) by order No. 1203 dated 14.11.81 of the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur District and he was allotted Belt No. 1864. The petitioner joined his duty at Reserved Police Lines, Jaipur with effect from 18.10.81. After completion of training for some months, he was sent to the Rajasthan Police Academy, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur with effect from 26.5.82. Shri Shantanu Kumar was at the relevant time Principal of the Rajasthan Police Academy. Respondent No. 4 Shri Shiv Dayal Singh, was Resident Inspector and one Shri Bhagirath Singh was Line Inspector in the Rajasthan Police Academy. According to the petitioner respondent No. 4 and Shri Bhagirath Singh used to misbehave with the trainees including the petitioner. They frequently used unparliamentary language and abused the trainees. This led to filing a complaint by the petitioner to the Governor of Rajasthan, the Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police (RPA) on 25.6.82 (Annexure-2). Then the petitioner was given severe physical beating with rifle buts and boots. He was made to crawl and subjected to torture and harassment. He, therefore, made another complaint to the Principal, Rajasthan Police Academy. The Additional Superintendent of Police (RPA) was appointed to inquire into the matter by Shri Shantanu Kumar. On 6.7.82 to petitioner was given beating by the two Inspectors and he was compelled to go on leave with effect from 8.7.82. He returned to join duty on 11.7.82. Then he was threatened that he will be shot dead if he comes on duty. The petitioner has stated that when he met the Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police regarding the inhuman treatment meted out to him, the Superintendent of Police directed him to go to the room of Additional Superintendent of Police. Then he was threatened that he will be shot dead if he comes on duty. The petitioner has stated that when he met the Superintendent of Police and the Additional Superintendent of Police regarding the inhuman treatment meted out to him, the Superintendent of Police directed him to go to the room of Additional Superintendent of Police. In the said room respondent No. 4 and Bhagirath Singh were called and the petitioner was hanged with his feet towards the roof and he was again given beating by bars and boot kicks. He became unconscious. When he regained consciousness he was given marching orders. The petitioner was then admitted in the S. M. S. Hospital on 11.7.82 and there he remained upto 24.8.82. A certificate issued by the S. M. S. Hospital in this regard has been-placed on record as Annexure-3. On 25.8.82 the petitioner submitted his joining report along with the medical certificate. He was directed to meet the Superintendent of Police, District Jaipur Shri Namonarain Meena. Shri Namonarain Meen however refused to take the petitioner on duty by saying that he has already been removed from service. Order of removal from service was not served upon the petitioner but subsequently the. petitioner got a copy of it. This order has been placed on record as Annexure-4. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 demanded a sum of र 4,000/- for getting him reinstated in service and the petitioner paid this amount to respondent No. 4 in the month of September 1982. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Director General of Police but it was rejected by the Director General of Police and this rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.12.82 (Annexure-5). Petitioner then demanded return of र 4,000/- from Shri Shiv Dayal Singh but this too he declined. He then filed review petition before the Governor of Rajasthan and gave details of the injustice done to him. The petitioner then made representations- to the Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Director General of Police, Superintendent of Police, etc. and gave out that he will start hunger strike. He did start hunger strike on 30.10.85. The then Director General of Police Shri P. C. Mishra, Superintendent of Police Shri Namonarain Meena and others persuaded the petitioner to give up his hunger strike and gave an assurance for reinstatement and return of र 4,000/-. and gave out that he will start hunger strike. He did start hunger strike on 30.10.85. The then Director General of Police Shri P. C. Mishra, Superintendent of Police Shri Namonarain Meena and others persuaded the petitioner to give up his hunger strike and gave an assurance for reinstatement and return of र 4,000/-. However, this did not materialise. According to the petitioner, on representations made by him, the then Director General of Police Shri P. C. Mishra ordered an inquiry in the whole matter and Shri R. K. Goyal S. H. 0., Police Station Shastri Nagar was appointed to inquire into the matter. Notwithstanding all this, nothing happened. 3. Petitioner has challenged the order of discharge from service on the ground that it has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice and that the reason given in the order of discharge, namely, "unsatisfactory performance during probation" is totally incorrect. Petitioner's further case is that action taken by the Superintendent of Police for termination of his service is punitive in character and it is contrary to Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 as well as Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 4. In their reply, respondents No. 1 to 3 have admitted the factum of selection of the petitioner and his appointment as Constable (Civil Police.). They have however denied the allegation of the petitioner that he was subjected to inhuman treatment and misbehaviour by the Resident Inspector and other officers of the Rajasthan Police Academy. Respondents have stated that no complaint was made by the petitioner orally or in writing to the Superintendent of Police(RPA) or to the Inspector General of Police. According to them the petitioner never performed his duties and he used to remain absent from the training. They have stated that the petitioner has not named the officer who gave beating to him on 6.7.82 and compelled him to goon leave under pressure. Likewise he has failed to give the name of the officer who gave him threat regarding life. In substance, the case of respondents is that the petitioner had remained absent from duty and he has cooked up the story of beating and the inhuman treatment against respondent No. 4 and other officers of the Rajasthan Police Academy. Likewise he has failed to give the name of the officer who gave him threat regarding life. In substance, the case of respondents is that the petitioner had remained absent from duty and he has cooked up the story of beating and the inhuman treatment against respondent No. 4 and other officers of the Rajasthan Police Academy. On account of his wilful absence and failure to perform his duties, Superintendent of Police issued order dated 26.8.82 (Annexure-R.1) for his discharge from service. Respondents have deined the allegation that respondent No. 4 accepted a sum of र 4,000/- from the petitioner. They have admitted that the petitioner did file a review petition before the Governor. It has however been stated that no inquiry was ordered by the Director General of Police to Shri R. K. Goyal, SHO, Police Station Shastri Nagar and no departmental inquiry was in fact conducted. In fact the Director General of Police had rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. According to respondents, the petitioner has rushed to this Court without waiting for result of the review petition filed by him before the Governor. 5. In his rejoinder, the petitioner has stated that he has named respondent No. 4 and Shri Bhagirath Singh who used unparliamentary language and who gave him beating. He has denied the allegation of wilful absence from duty or non-performance of his job. The petitioner has filed an affidavit of Shri Omprakash Sharma, who has stated that application of the petitioner dated 11.7.89 regarding his illness was handed over by him to Shri Shiv Dayal Singh in the premises of Rajasthan Police Academy at 11 A.M. It has been stated by the petitioner that he had sent representations to various authorities of the Police Department by registered post and under certificate of posting but no action was taken by them. Photo copy of the postal receipts have been placed on record as Annexures-10 and 10A. 6. During the course of hearing it was felt by the Court that it is necessary to look into the record relating to the complaint Annexure-2 made by the petitioner. A direction was, therefore, given to the respondents on 3.9.92 to produce that record. On 15.9.92 learned Additional Govt. Advocate sought time to produce the record. On 18.9.92 learned Deputy Govt. Advocate sought time to produce the record. On 15.10.92 Ms. A direction was, therefore, given to the respondents on 3.9.92 to produce that record. On 15.9.92 learned Additional Govt. Advocate sought time to produce the record. On 18.9.92 learned Deputy Govt. Advocate sought time to produce the record. On 15.10.92 Ms. Goyal produced the register to show that record in respect of Annexure-2 has been weeded out on 24.8.91. On a query made by the Court, the respondents stated that reasons for weeding out the representations submitted by the petitioner will be disclosed later on. However, such reasons have not been furnished to the court till the date of conclusion of hearing i.e. 3.11.92 and even till this day. 7. Main Argument of Shri J. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that action taken by the respondents for termination of his service by way of discharge is contrary to law, the principles of natural justice and it is wholly arbitrary. Shri Goyal submitted that the petitioner had been appointed on probation and he was sincerely undertaking. training at the Rajasthan Police Academy. Case for his discharge from service has been concocted by the respondents because he had made complaint against the ill-treatment and inhuman behaviour of respondent No. 4 and Shri Bhagirath Singh. Shri Goyal submitted that although petitioner has made specific allegation against respondent No. 4 that he gave beating to him, neither he has filed any reply nor respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed this affidavit or affidavit of any other officer to rebut the specific allegation levelled against respondent No. 4 or Bhagirath Singh. Affidavit of Shri Shantanu Kumar, the then Principal, Rajasthan Police Academy has also not been filed to rebut the plea of petitioner that he did file complaint against respondent No. 4 and Bhagirath Singh. Shri Goyal submitted that the reason given for discharge of the petitioner from service is contrary to the plea raised by the respondents that the petitioner has remained wilfully absent from duty during the period of training. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate on the other hand argued that action taken by the respondents for termination of service of the petitioner is perfectly legitimate and justified. Miss Goyal submitted that when petitioner's performance was found unsatisfactory, the Superintendent of Police had every authority to pass order of his discharge from service. 8. Learned Deputy Govt. Advocate on the other hand argued that action taken by the respondents for termination of service of the petitioner is perfectly legitimate and justified. Miss Goyal submitted that when petitioner's performance was found unsatisfactory, the Superintendent of Police had every authority to pass order of his discharge from service. 8. Before examining the question as to whether the order of discharge from service passed by the Superintendent of Police is vitiated on account of the violation of provisions of 1958 Rules or the principles of natural justice, it is necessary to emphasis that although in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the writ petition the petitioner has made specific allegations of having been subjected to beating, torture and inhuman treatment at the Rajasthan Police Academy and he has made respondent No. 4 as a party in person, respondents have not filed any affidavit of any of the officers named in these paragraphs of the petition. Respondent No. 4 on his part as not chosen to file any reply to the writ petition. Bald denial made by the respondents in answer to the specific allegations set out in the petition cannot be treated as sufficient for discarding the case of petitioner. Total silence on the part of respondent No. 4 shows that he does not deny the allegations levelled against him in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the writ petition. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have also not been able to show as to what happened to the complaint filed by the petitioner (Annexure-2). Surprisingly the respondents have come out with a statement before the Court on 15.12.92 that record relating to Annexure-2 has been weeded out on 24.8.91. Notice of the writ petition had been served on the respondents as early as in the year 1988. Reply had also been filed on 14.10.88 by respondents No. 1 to 3. Despite this, the record has been weeded out on 24.8.91. No. explanation has been offered by the respondents as to under what circumstances record relating to the subject matter of this case has been weeded out during the pendency of writ petition. Reply had also been filed on 14.10.88 by respondents No. 1 to 3. Despite this, the record has been weeded out on 24.8.91. No. explanation has been offered by the respondents as to under what circumstances record relating to the subject matter of this case has been weeded out during the pendency of writ petition. The failure of the respondents to file specific reply to the clear and unequivocal assertions made by the petitioner and their conduct in weeding out the record justify an inference that the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition to the effect that respondent No. 4 and Shri Bhagirath Singh abused him, gave him beating, tortured and subjected the petitioner to inhuman treatment, are correct. It is their action which made the petitioner to be admitted in the S. M. S. Hospital where he was advised rest for 45 days. Petitioner's statement regarding his ailment is substantiated by Annexure-3 i.e. a medical certificate issued by the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur and there is no reason to discard the certificate issued by the S. M. S. Hospital. Since the petitioner was ailing and was advised rest by the competent medical authority, respondents' plea that he wilfully remained absent from duty for this period,cannot be accepted. No other material has been placed by the respondents on record to show that the petitioner wilfully remained absent from duty at any other point of time. Respondents have also not placed on record any other material to show as to how performance of the petitioner was adjudged as unsatisfactory. Total failure on the part of respondents to substantiate their assertion regarding wilful absence or unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner, if looked into in the light of the fact that the petitioner was subjected to inhuman treatment by respondent No. 4 and Shri Bhagirath Singh during the course of training, unequivocally proves that the order of discharge from service passed against the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is an order which suffers from malice in law because the Superintendent of Police has passed the impugned order without application of mind. Rather it is based on extraneous considerations. I am also of the view that the words 'unsatisfactory performance' have been used as a disguise to project a picture that the respondents have acted bonafide. It is an order which suffers from malice in law because the Superintendent of Police has passed the impugned order without application of mind. Rather it is based on extraneous considerations. I am also of the view that the words 'unsatisfactory performance' have been used as a disguise to project a picture that the respondents have acted bonafide. In fact action of the respondents suffer from total lack of bonafides because they have shunted the petitioner out of job only on account-of the fact that he had filed complaint against some officers of the Rajasthan Police Academy. 9. Coming to the legal aspect of the matter, I must observe that while in the order of discharge from service reason of unsatisfactory performance has been given out as the basis of the action taken by the Superintendent of Police, in the reply respondents have come out with the case that the petitioner has wilfully remained absent from duty and, therefore, the competent authority issued order of his discharge from service. If petitioner is said to have remained absent from duty, question of his performance being unsatisfactory simply did not arise. That apart if termination of his service has been brought about on account of his alleged wilful absence, action of the respondents is liable to be quashed only on the ground that no action oriented notice was given to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before the Superintendent of Police took a decision to dispense with his service on the ground of alleged wilful absence. It cannot be doubted that wilful absence from duty amounts to misconduct and any action on the basis of such allegation of misconduct can be taken only in accordance with the provisions of 1958 Rules and the principles of natural justice. Since neither Rules of 1958 nor the principles of natural justice have been followed before passing the order of termination of service of the petitioner on 26.8.82, this Court is left with little option but to declare the order of termination of service of the petitioner to be illegal. A similar question has been examined by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 324/85 Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1993 Vidhi Patrika 43 . A similar question has been examined by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 324/85 Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1993 Vidhi Patrika 43 . Alter making reference to a number of decisions of the British Courts and of the Supreme Court of India including Jaishankar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 492 and of this Court in Chetan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1976 WLN (UC) 377 , it has been held that termination of service of an employee on the allegation of absence from duty without following the procedure prescribed in the Rules and the principles of natural justice, is liable to be declared as void. 10. In the result the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 26.8.82 passed by the Superintendent of Police is declared illegal and it is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service. He shall be again given opportunity of completing his training. He shall be confirmed in service after successful completion of training. His service shall be treated as continuous without any break. However he shall not be entitled to the benefit of actual wages for the period between the date of termination of his service and the date of this order. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******