D. S. SINHA, J. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 6th January, 1986 whereby peti tioner has been dismissed from the post of Secretary, Atma Nirbhar Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Nasiti, district Mathara. 2. Sri R. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the impugned order was bad inasmuch as it was passed in violation of the provisions contained in Regulation 85 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975, (hereinafter called the Regulations ). 3. The petition was filed on 28th January, 1986 and was admitted on 28th August, 1986. But in spite of lapse of interminable period of more than 10 years the respondents have not cared to file any counter- affidavit. Thus, the averments contained in the petition stand uncontroverted and have to be taken, prima facie correct. 4. In the petition, the petitioner has asserted that no disciplinary proceeding against him under Regulation 85 of the regulations, which was a condition precedent for inflicting upon him the punishment of dismissal from service, was taken. 5. During the course of hearing Sri R. C. Yadav, learned standing counsel representing the respondents, sought to justify the passing of the impugned order without holding disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the petitioner was an absconder, and clause (b) of sub-regulation (ii) of Regulation 85 permitted the competent authority to award to the petitioner the punishment of dismissal without taking any disciplinary proceeding. 6. Sub-regulation (ii) of Regulation 85 which deals with the circum stances when the competent authority may award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings is as follows : " (ii) (a) Where an employee is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or (b) Where the employee has absconded and his whereabouts are not known to the society for more than three months; or (c) Where the employee refuses or fails without sufficient cause to appear before the Inquiring Officer when specifically called upon in writing to appear ; or (d) where it is otherwise (for reasons to be recorded) not possible to communicate with him, the competent authority ma y award appropriate punishment with out taking or continuing disciplinary proceeding. " 7. " 7. It is to be noticed that clause (b) of sub-regulation (ii) of regula tion 85relied upon by the learned standing counsel empowers the competent authority to award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings where the employee has absconded and his where abouts are not known to the society for more than three months. Thus, the power under this provision can be exercised only if it is established that (a) the employee has absconded, and (b) his whereabouts are not known to the society for more than three months. The factum of absconding of the employee and absence of the knowledge of his where about with the society for more than three months are twin conditions which must exist simultaneously to clothe the competent authority with the power to award punishment to the employee for taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings. Mere absconding of the employee cannot be sufficient to justify the dispensation of requirement of taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee. 8 From the pleadings in the petition and various communications appended thereto as annexures, it is clearly borne out that the relevant authorities were fully aware that the petitioner was living in village Nagla Lala, Hathras in the district of Aligarh and in fact, they had been corres ponding with him at the place of his residence. Therefore, one of the two basic ingredients envisaged in clause (b) of sub- regulation (ii) of Regulation 85 of the regulations, namely, absence of the knowledge of the society about whereabouts of the petitioner for more than three months was non-existent. In the absence of this ingredient the competent authority could not dispense with requirement of taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings straight away inflict upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal by the impugn ed order. The impugned order, in the opinion of the Court, is clearly con trary to the provisions of Regulation 85 of the Regulations. It is illegal and cannot be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 6th January, 1986, a copy whereof is Annexure 1 to the peti tion, is quashed. As the respondents have not come forward to contest the petition, the petitioner shall bear his own costs. Petition allowed. .