Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in Annexure 1 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed on conclusion of a departmental proceeding and also against the order as contained in Annexure 3 whereby and whereunder his statutory ap-. peal has been dismissed. 3. It appears that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the charge of desertion from 8.5.1995 to 28.5.1995 and he was put under suspension vide order dated 29.5.1995. The petitioner was intimated of the departmental proceeding and show cause notice was issued to him alongwith the charges but he never turned up before the enquiry officer nor he filed any explanation. The enquiry officer, however, on the basis of the evidence found the charges of desertion against the petitioner to be proved. The disciplinary authority, accordingly, acted upon the enquiry report and finding the explanation of the petitioner wholly unsatisfactory coupled with the fact that charges were found proved against him, dismissed him from the services. The statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 4. It appears that the petitioner deserted the police force from 8th May, 1995 till 28th May, 1995. It is submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner since was suffering from mental disorder, he left the police force at once without taking due permission from the authorities and remained hospitalized in mental hospital, Kanke and no sooner he recovered from the mental disorder, he reported before the authorities but by that time he was dismissed. It is also submitted by learned counsel that no notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioner nor he had any knowledge of the departmental proceeding and, therefore, the orders impugned must be held to be violative of the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the contrary, submitted on the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner deserted the police force without formal leave and remained absent for several days. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the authorities and filed his medical prescription etc. some times in the year 1999 almost after three years of the dismissal from services. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared before the authorities and filed his medical prescription etc. some times in the year 1999 almost after three years of the dismissal from services. In this regard, learned counsel for the State also points out that the petitioner himself had made an endorsement in the show cause notice that he is busy with house hold affairs and no sooner he comes up, he will report to duty. Learned counsel for the State has tried to impress upon the court that it is not a case where the petitioner was hospitalised in Kanke and was suffering from mental illness rather it is a case where the petitioner wilfully deserted the police force unauthorisedly. 6. Having considered the tacts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the orders impugned. 7. This application is accordingly dismissed.