JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his removal from service dated 20th December, 2001 and rejection of his appeal by order dated 14th March, 2005 with the prayer to declare both these orders illegal and quash and set aside both of them and direct the respondents to reinstate him back in service along with all consequential service benefits from the date of his removal. 2. According to the petitioner, he was initially appointed as Constable in Rajasthan Police at Police Line, Jaipur vide order dated 23-9-1989. He was awarded a certificate of good performance and admiration by the Director General of Police in the ceremony of Rajasthan Police Day on 17-4-1992 and another certificate of good performance for discharging duties by Presiding Officer during Lok Sabha Election on 11-9-1999. While the petitioner was discharging duties in the Government employment, his house got burnt in fire in 1996 at Village Pragpura Tehsil Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur. Resultantly, the petitioner received a great shock and went into depression. He became a psychological patient and mentally sick and with the passage of time, he lost his mental balance. When the petitioner was posted at Police Line, Jaipur City in the year 2000, he could not present himself in the roll call at 8.00 p.m. on 5th April, 2000 for the reason that all of a sudden his mental disorder and depression became severe. He was not in a position to join his services. Due to this, he also could not inform about this to his superiors. In support of his claim, the petitioner has placed on record medical treatment prescriptions and certificates which show that for the period beginning from 1999 till 2002, he remained under treatment for the mental disease. The first prescription which is on record is by Dr. K.G. Thanvi, Neuro Physician dated 21st December, 1999 and thereafter by Dr. Alok Tyagi. These documents show that the petitioner remained under continuous treatment of the Doctors at Mental Hospital, Jaipur and diagnosed to be a case of acute psychosis and severe depression. 3. The first prescription which is on record is by Dr. K.G. Thanvi, Neuro Physician dated 21st December, 1999 and thereafter by Dr. Alok Tyagi. These documents show that the petitioner remained under continuous treatment of the Doctors at Mental Hospital, Jaipur and diagnosed to be a case of acute psychosis and severe depression. 3. Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court in particular to the prescription of petitioner's treatment issued by the Senior Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Reserve Police Line, Jaipur dated 19th March, 2001 which is on record as Annexure 7 and dated 15-12-2001 which is also on record as Annexure 10. These prescriptions indicate that the petitioner was referred to mental hospital by Senior Doctor of Reserve Police Lines, Jaipur with Constable No. 2856, Bhag Singh. A report to this effect was entered in Rojnamcha Report No. 59 dated 19-3-2001. Second prescription show that this time again he was referred with the opinion of Senior Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Reserve Police Line, Jaipur City to Mental Hospital and again he was sent with the Constable No. 2856 Bhag Singh and was hospitalized. This was entered at Rojnamcha Report No. 89 dated 15-12-2001. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner around this time was not in a position to decide. As to what was in his best interest or otherwise and in that state of mind, a charge sheet dated 14th January, 2001 for willful absence of 314 days was issued to him and ex parte proceedings were conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 7th August, 2001 indicating that notice of the inquiry was served upon the petitioner, on 20th May, 2001 and thereafter on 21st April, 2001 and thereafter on 17th July, 2001 but the petitioner did not appear. Thus, the charges were held to be proved against the petitioner in an ex parte proceedings and eventually the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 20th December, 2001 removing the petitioner from services. In the course of time, when the petitioner gained health and came out of the disease, he filed appeal before the Appellate Authority on 17th December, 2004, which however was dismissed being barred by limitation vide order dated 14th March, 2005. 4. In the course of time, when the petitioner gained health and came out of the disease, he filed appeal before the Appellate Authority on 17th December, 2004, which however was dismissed being barred by limitation vide order dated 14th March, 2005. 4. Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel argued that the kind of mental disease with which the petitioner was suffering, he in that situation was not even able to decide when and where he was to attend his duties and therefore, even if the notice of enquiry was served, the petitioner was not conscious about what was the implication of his non appearance in that enquiry proceedings. This fact was fully known to the respondents because he had the mental ailment active even while he was posted in Police Lines, and their own Senior Medical Officer of the Government Hospital in the Police Line sent the petitioner twice to the Mental Hospital with the same Constable which fact was duly entered in the Rojnamcha. The petitioner remained hospitalized on various occasions during all this time and notice was served upon him when he was in that state of mind. In view of his health this notice was without any meaning. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner raised all these grounds in the appeal but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without going into merits observing that the appeal was time barred. It was bounden duty of the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer, who cannot be said to be completely unaware of the mental health of the petitioner to at least provide him defence assistant who could represent his case before the authorities and appraise. them of the true facts. 5. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & Ors., 2000(2) SCT 314 : (2000)3 SCC 450 , of Calcutta High Court in R.S. Singh v. Union of India. & Ors., 2002(2) SLR 499 and Allahabad High Court in Najmul Hasan Rizvi v. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., 2004(1) SCT 406 : 2003(8) SLR 781, on the question that even otherwise penalty was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the charge. The learned counsel argued that there was total violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be said to have been afforded opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel argued that there was total violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner cannot be said to have been afforded opportunity of hearing. The learned counsel also cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2002)10 SCC 133 : 2001 AIR SCW 2287 and argued that in that case too the order of discharge of a police constable was quashed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the same was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Shri B.L. Avasthi, learned Additional Government counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that the notice of inquiry was served upon the petitioner, not once but on as many as three occasions but the petitioner even then failed to participate in the enquiry. This cannot be said to be violation of principles of natural justice and it was fault of the petitioner himself. If the petitioner was suffering with mental ailment, it was for him to immediately after receipt of the charge sheet submit reply and produce the proof of his mental disability. It was argued that the petitioner deliberately remained absent from the duty, therefore, it was decided to remove the petitioner from service. When the petitioner failed to appear In the enquiry after receipt of the notice, absence of the petitioner was proved on the basis of evidence adduced by the department in that behalf. It was argued that the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeal as the same was filed almost three years after the date of removal order, which was passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA Rules), 1958. The learned Addl. Government Counsel, therefore, submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar and perused the material on record. 8. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that the charge that has been framed against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner absented from duties on 5th April, 2000 and thereafter reported back on duties on 13-2-2001 and thus he willfully absented for 314 days. 8. A perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that the charge that has been framed against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner absented from duties on 5th April, 2000 and thereafter reported back on duties on 13-2-2001 and thus he willfully absented for 314 days. It is no doubt true that the enquiry against the petitioner was held ex parte and the charge aforesaid has been found to be proved on the basis of whatever evidence was adduced by the Department before the Enquiry Officer. It is also true that apart from the charge sheet, certain other notices were served upon the petitioner calling upon him to appear before the Enquiry Officer. What is however more significant to notice is that the petitioner during the proceedings of enquiry was attached with the Police Line, Jaipur itself and the medical prescriptions on record as also the reference of the petitioner by the Senior Medical Officer of the Government, Jaipur on 19th March, 2001 and again on 15th December, 2001 to Mental Hospital clearly show that the petitioner during all this period was suffering from serious mental ailment so much so that he needed to be frequently hospitalized as per the advice of the Senior Medical Officer. He was sent to mental hospital by the respondents themselves with their constable, Bhag Singh and an entry to this effect was made in the Rojnamcha of the Police Lines, Jaipur at Serial No. 59 on 19th March, 2001. He was thereafter sent to Mental Hospital with the same Constable Bhag Singh on 15-12-2001 and an entry of this event was made in the Rojnamcha at Serial No. 89. Number of medical reports, which the petitioner has produced before this Court, show that the petitioner remained under treatment for this ailment, quite regularly and that period corresponds to the time when disciplinary proceedings was held against him. The Disciplinary Authority in his case was the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter, Jaipur) who also controls the Police Lines, Jaipur. The Enquiry Officer was Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), Jaipur. The Disciplinary Authority in his case was the Superintendent of Police (Headquarter, Jaipur) who also controls the Police Lines, Jaipur. The Enquiry Officer was Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), Jaipur. The events of this nature, which pertains to the petitioner showing his mental ailment to the extent that he had to be twice hospitalized in the mental hospital at the instance of Senior Medical Officer of Government Hospital within the Reserve Police Line itself ought not to have completely gone unnoticed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer. It is surprising that so many other documents including the entry report of the petitioner joining duties on 13-2-2001 vide Entry No. 176 of the Rojnamcha were produced before the Enquiry Officer by the Department and this significant aspect of the matter was withheld from the enquiry. When enquiry against the petitioner was being held ex parte because of such mental state of the petitioner, the department was duty obliged to bring before the Enquiry Officer all such facts which would have material bearing on the matter. The enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, who had been undergoing such mental health thus ex facie appears to be not only contrary to the principles of natural justice but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the first place absence of a person with such an ailment cannot be described as willful absence because he is in no position to either decipher his wishes or discern his willingness. Secondly, the so called service of notice on a person who has no control over his mental senses and is not able to decide what is in his best interest or otherwise and what was the implication of his non-appearance, cannot be called as due service of notice. The enquiry proceedings against the petitioner, in my considered view, were held in utter and complete disregard of principles of natural justice. Disciplinary proceeding conducted against the petitioner was, therefore, a mere eye-wash. The Appellate Authority, in spite of the fact that the petitioner raised all these arguments before him about his mental health and onwards and about being referred to Government Hospital at the instance of Senior Medical Officer of Reserve Police Lines, simply dismissed the appeal as being time barred. Disciplinary proceeding conducted against the petitioner was, therefore, a mere eye-wash. The Appellate Authority, in spite of the fact that the petitioner raised all these arguments before him about his mental health and onwards and about being referred to Government Hospital at the instance of Senior Medical Officer of Reserve Police Lines, simply dismissed the appeal as being time barred. The facts that were stated before him could as a whole be considered sufficient cause for condoning delay and considering the appeal on merits. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, the order of removal of the petitioner cannot be sustained, although the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in the self-same order to the extent of regularising his absence period i.e. from 5th April, 2000 to 13th February, 2001 i.e. for total number of 314 days, need not to be interfered with. 10. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order of removal dated 20-12-2001 is hereby quashed and set aside only to the extent of removal of the petitioner. Consequently, the order of Appellate Authority dated 14-3-2005 is also quashed and set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 11. Compliance of the judgment be made within three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******