JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 10-6-1991 and the appellate order dated 3-1-1992. A memorandum of charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was served stating that earlier the services were terminated on 31-3-1983 and he was taken back on 21-12-1986 and he was absent for 464 days in 12 years and punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed and that a false complaint was made against the higher officers namely Mohan Singh. In 8 years' service he was absent for 40 days. He was blackmailing the higher officers. 2. Application dated 9-4-1990 was submitted for giving certified copies of the documents mentioned therein with submission that the name of defence counsel would be given along with the final reply. By letter dated 20-4-1990 he was allowed to inspect the record. He again informed on 25-4-1990 that the attendance register from 1983 to 1989 have not been shown. The reply dated 12-6-1991 was ultimately submitted. In the meantime the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20-4-1990 and the petitioner requested that 15 days' time may be given for appointment of defence counsel as per his letter dated 25-5-1990. Representation dated 20-9-1990 was submitted that due to influence of Mohan Singh, RI, defence counsel the petitioner wants to appoint another defence counsel. Ultimately by order dated 12-6-1991 the punishment of dismissal from service was given by the disciplinary authority. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order is non-speaking and the petitioner was not given the opportunity to appoint the defence counsel and that neither the certified copies were given nor the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents completely and the punishment which has already been inflicted has been taken into consideration which has resulted in double jeopardy. The decision in respect of each of the charges have not been given. Even the registers in which the absence is alleged has not been produced. The copy of the witnesses statement was not provided nor they were allowed to be cross-examined and similarly the appellate authority has not considered all the objections raised and therefore, the order is also liable to be quashed. 4. Even the registers in which the absence is alleged has not been produced. The copy of the witnesses statement was not provided nor they were allowed to be cross-examined and similarly the appellate authority has not considered all the objections raised and therefore, the order is also liable to be quashed. 4. In this matter a contention is raised that Mohan Singh, RI, has executed an affidavit on 23-1-1987 and he has confessed that he has taken Rs. 100/- as bribe from the petitioner. This affidavit was neither produced before the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority or even the appellate authority and the original has also not been submitted. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain as to why direction for prosecution may not be given against the petitioner for submitting a forged document in this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner would produce the original affidavit in the Court where the affidavit is sent for prosecution and he still submits that the affidavit given by Mohan Singh is correct. I do not consider that this explanation of the petitioner or his learned Counsel is proper. The affidavit could not have been executed on 23-1-1987 as mentioned in para 28 of the writ petition as it refers the instances of 17-10-1987. Secondly, in the reply of the respondents, it is stated that he has submitted the affidavit to the effect that he made a false report and lie admitted that he look the loan of Rs. 150/- from Mohan Singh when Mohan Singh asked him to make good the loan in the presence of other policeman, therefore, he felt insulted and, therefore, for taking revenge he falsely implicated Mohan Singh. It was on this basis that the entire inquiry proceedings were based that the petitioner falsely implicated Mohan Singh of having accepted the bribe of Rs. 100/- when it was a loan. Now this position is staled to be again contradicted by saying that he took the bribe and Annexure-15 has been submitted in respect thereof. The change of stand by the petitioner makes it clear that Ex. 15 is a forged document. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to lodge a complaint against the petitioner for submitting a false document along with this writ petition. The change of stand by the petitioner makes it clear that Ex. 15 is a forged document. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to lodge a complaint against the petitioner for submitting a false document along with this writ petition. It may further be observed that in ease it is found that the affidavit given by Mohan Singh is correct, then he has to be prosecuted for accepting the bribe and the petitioner who has filed the affidavit earlier is to be prosecuted for falsely giving the affidavit before the authorities. The affidavit submitted before the authorities shall also be called by the competent Court in order to adjudicate the matter. 5. In respect of various contentions which have been raised by the petitioner, it is found that according to reply submitted by the respondents, the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents, but he never appeared in the office for inspection of the documents and false allegation has been made that he was not allowed to inspect the documents. The memorandum of charge was given to the petitioner on 3-3-1990 and the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20-4-1990. The petitioner was informed that the departmental enquiry would commence on 28-5-1990. He did not attend the inquiry not submitted any reply nor otherwise take part in it and the reply dated 12-6-91 was submitted after the order of dismissal was passed. He was given time that notices were sent for submitting the reply, but he did not participate in the inquiry despite the opportunity being given. Even for appointing the defence counsel, sufficient lime was given and a bald allegation that because of the influence of Mohan Singh, the defence counsel has not given his consent. It is relevant to observe that if on one point he says that Mohan Singh has given affidavit to accept the bribe at the instance of the petitioner, then how any person can be in his influence. No document has been produced from which it could be inferred that it was on account of influence of Mohan Singh that the defence counsel refused to accept defending the petitioner. Against the order of dismissal dated 31-3-1983. the appellate authority had given him one chance to reform and he again absented. No document has been produced from which it could be inferred that it was on account of influence of Mohan Singh that the defence counsel refused to accept defending the petitioner. Against the order of dismissal dated 31-3-1983. the appellate authority had given him one chance to reform and he again absented. The petitioner was found habitual absentee in spile of the fact that he was in the police service where not only discipline is to be maintained but the image should be such which may not destroy the reputation of the department. A person who has absented himself cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice and proper opportunity is given and the delinquent officer remains absent he cannot complain the violation of principles of natural justice or for not providing the list of witnesses or not giving opportunity of cross-examination. The question of double jeopardy does not arise in the present case because the services of the petitioner were earlier terminated and the appellate authority reinstated by giving him a warning that he should not be absent in future and it was in this context that the reference is made that the petitioner being absent for 464 days in 12 years and 40 times in 8 years. Not only that he was found indisciplined, but by his non-conduct it was found that the trap of Mohan Singh was not factually correct. Even in the memorandum of charge-sheet it is mentioned that the petitioner has submitted an affidavit and clarified that Rs. 100/- by which Mohan Singh was trapped were not of bribe but were out of loan of Rs. 150/- which was taken and Rs. 100/- were returned therefrom. The charges have properly been found lobe proved on the basis of evidence and inquiry. This Court under Article 226 is not even to reappraise the evidence. The disciplinary authority has discussed the evidence and the inquiry report and all the charges were found proved. Before the appellate authority the petitioner was present himself. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 23-5-1990 for appointment of defence counsel and in spite of letter sent on 2-5-1991 and 10-5-1991 neither he appeared nor sent any information. The appellate authority found that during the period from 28-4-1991 to 12-6-1991 the petitioner absented himself. Before the appellate authority the petitioner was present himself. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 23-5-1990 for appointment of defence counsel and in spite of letter sent on 2-5-1991 and 10-5-1991 neither he appeared nor sent any information. The appellate authority found that during the period from 28-4-1991 to 12-6-1991 the petitioner absented himself. The opportunity of personal hearing was given by the appellate authority on 30-12-1991 and it was found that both the charges are fully proved. The appeal was dismissed. 6. I have considered over the matter. The charges which were levelled against the petitioner have been proved. It is not a case of dispensement of proof of the charges. No assistance can be taken from the judgment of B.E. Supply Co. v. The Workman, AIR 1972 SC 330 : (1972 Lab IC 188) , as the burden which was on the respondents has duly been discharged. Similarly no assistance can be taken from the decision given in the case of Amrit Lal v. State of Rajasthan. 1981 WLN (UC) 457 , because the burden which was on the department has been discharged and a person who has wilfully absented cannot be aggrieved, as held in Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha, 1994 (2) SCC 615 . 7. The case of Jyotish Chandra v. DMO, 1984 (2) SLR 239 : (1984 Lab IC 102) is also of no assistance to the petitioner as it was not a case of second punishment for the earlier offences so as to invoke the doctrine of double jeopardy but that fact was taken into consideration on account of direction of the appellate authority. A decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, JT 1996 (5) SC 540 , is also relevant. 8. So far as observations in the case of Siemen Engineering and Manufacturing Company v. UOI, AIR 1976 SC 1785 is concerned, reasons must be recorded in support of quasi-judicial order. There cannot be any dispute and the reasons are duly recorded. Same view has been taken in the case of CB Gautam v. UOI, 1993 (1) SCC 78 : ( AIR 1994 SC 771 ) . The procedure for inquiry was fully followed and the person who in spite of opportunity being given again and again cannot complain of ex parte proceedings. Same view has been taken in the case of CB Gautam v. UOI, 1993 (1) SCC 78 : ( AIR 1994 SC 771 ) . The procedure for inquiry was fully followed and the person who in spite of opportunity being given again and again cannot complain of ex parte proceedings. Besides the above factual position, the petitioner has submitted a forged document and has taken contradictory stand time and again with regard to Rs. 100/- and for that reason also no case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction is made out. No prejudice is otherwise argued or established and in view of S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India, JT 1996 (9) SC 542 , the enquiry is not vitiated. 9. On facts as well as on law, I do not consider that any case for interference is made' out. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.Petition dismissed. *******