JUDGMENT Hon'ble Sri B. Lal, Chairman: 1. By means of this claim petition, the impugned order dated 9.12.2003 is sought to be quashed with all consequential benefits along with the direction to treat the period of absence as on duty. 2. The facts giving rise to the claim petition are that the petitioner had been working as Police Constable for last 21 years and was posted in the Police Line, District Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand when the impugned punishment order was passed on 9.12.2003 by which petitioner was dismissed from Police Services. The petitioner has the history of suffering from schizophrenia disorder before being posted at District Uttarkashi. Petitioner remained posted in the mental health hospital, Agra w.e.f. 24.11.1995 to 3.2.1996 and again from 29.8.1997 to 20.12.1997. Copy of the medical certificate has been filed as Annexure-2. Petitioner has not committed any act of willful indiscipline, but it was under the influence of mental decease named Schizophrenia at the time of incident. The Inspector of Police Line was fully aware that petitioner was suffering from mental health, but neither he was treated nor informed superior authorities. During his posting at Uttarkashi, the symptoms became more conspicuous and he was behaving unusually in the Police Line. Inspector, Sh. Harish Chandra Sayal who was as posted Line Inspector in the line had never informed his higher authorities about his abnormal behaviour. Under the influence of the mental illness, the petitioner entered into the office of the Line Inspector, Sh. Harish Chandra Sayal and demanded some money as his leave was not sanctioned. The Line Inspector who had the knowledge of his abnormal behaviour, escaped from his room and when petitioner tried to stop him, the Line Inspector gave him thrashing and after beating him mercilessly, lodged him in jail and also entered the incident in the G.D. No. 40 of the Line. He also lodged false complaint on the basis of which petitioner was suspended and enquiry was instituted against him. 3. The charge sheet was issued by the Enquiry Officer Sh. Hira Vallabh Badola, Dy. S.P without approval of the appointing authority i.e. S.P Uttarkashi. The enquiry officer also framed charges against him and the enquiry was conducted and he was expected to participate in the enquiry. Neither copy of the enquiry report nor the copy of show cause notice was issued to him. Hira Vallabh Badola, Dy. S.P without approval of the appointing authority i.e. S.P Uttarkashi. The enquiry officer also framed charges against him and the enquiry was conducted and he was expected to participate in the enquiry. Neither copy of the enquiry report nor the copy of show cause notice was issued to him. The enquiry officer, against procedure, recommended his dismissal from the service. The punishing authority without applying its mind, accepted the report of enquiry officer including the punishment proposed by him and passed impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order, enquiry report and charge sheet are illegal ad against the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra 'respondents asserted that petitioner misbehaved with his superior officers while he was on duty which is an act of grave misconduct in the Po lice Force. It is also stated that the medical reports submitted by the petitioner are not genuine, they do not disclose the name of the decease and the same have not been proved. It is also stated that the abnormal behaviour of the petitioner was never spotted. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the charge sheet. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and opportunity of cross examination was afforded by the enquiry officer and show cause notice which was furnished to the petitioner along with enquiry report, but no reply was furnished by the petitioner. Therefore, punishment order is in accordance with the principle of natural justice and no irregularity has been committed be the punishing, authority. It is further submitted that his appeal and revision have rightly been dismissed by the authorities concerned. Respondents further submitted that petitioner is habitual to remain absent from duty for which he was punished with minor punishment. 5. Heard Sri B.B. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umesh Dhaundiyal, learned Assistant Presenting Officer for the respondents. 6. The questions which are to be determined in this case, (1) whether enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the rules and principles of natural justice and- (2) whether petitioner was actually suffering from the Schizophrenia. 7. So far as the conduct of enquiry is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that charge sheet was not approved by the punishing authority. We have perused the copy of the charge sheet. 7. So far as the conduct of enquiry is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that charge sheet was not approved by the punishing authority. We have perused the copy of the charge sheet. (Annexure-8) which is a photo copy of the charge sheet and found that the same was issued by the enquiry officer who is of the rank of Dy. S.P. or: 27.9.2003. The charge sheet is neither approved nor signed by the appointing authority i.e. S.P. Uttarkashi as provided under rules. Respondents in their written statement have nowhere asserted that charge sheet was approved or signed by the disciplinary authority. On perusal of the enquiry report. it would be seen that the petitioner re maimed present during the enquiry and he was also allowed to cross-examine from the witnesses. However, the enquiry officer while holding petitioner guilty for the charges, also recommended punishment to remove the petitioner from service under Rule 4(1) (ka) (2) of Rule 14(1) The UP Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (punishment & Appeal)Rules 1991 which indicates the pre-mindset of the enquiry officer. Enquiry officer is the independent person who can not propose the punishment. The irregularity committed is apparent on the face of record in as much as the charge sheet was issued suo-moto by the enquiry officer without any approval of the S.P. 8. In the second place, an irregularity has been committed by the enquiry officer by proposing the punishment and the punishing authority also accepted the enquiry report along with the punishment proposed therein. Therefore, there is no independent application of mind by the S.P. and the punishment order is against rules and against principles of natural justice. 9. So far as the act of indiscipline committed by the petitioner is concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that he had been suffering from Schizophrenia. right from 1995 and had occasionally been admitted to mental health hospital Agra. In this connection, during the posting of the petitioner at Pauri, the S.P., Pauri suspected him to be suffering from mental health, therefore a letter dated 27.7.2004 was issued, enquiring the health, mental status and the treatment of the petitioner. In reply to the letter, the C.M.O. Mental Hospital, Agra by his letter dated 20.10.2004 confirmed that the petitioner had been admitted from 24.11.1995 to 3.2.1996 and 29.8.1997 to 20.12.1997 for the treatment of Schizophrenia. In reply to the letter, the C.M.O. Mental Hospital, Agra by his letter dated 20.10.2004 confirmed that the petitioner had been admitted from 24.11.1995 to 3.2.1996 and 29.8.1997 to 20.12.1997 for the treatment of Schizophrenia. Copy of the letter has been filed as Annexure-2. Besides this, admission certificate to the Mental Hospital, Agra dated 29.4.2005 has been filed as Annexure- 2-A. A letter dated 29.8.2005, Annexure- 2-B has also been filed wherein it is submitted by the mental hospital that mental illness has been cured. Another certificate (Annexure-2-C) has been filed which shows that the petitioner was admitted on 29.4.2005 and relieved on 7.9.2005 which means that even after termination of services of the petitioner, he remained under the treatment in the mental hospital. These certificates filed by the petitioner before the enquiry officer have not been considered properly and it was only stated that the name of the decease is not disclosed. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that officer in charge of the Police Line violated the provision contained in Regulation No. 384, 385, 386 and 387 as much as it was in the knowledge of the authorities that petitioner was treated in the mental hospital, but no measure was taken to treat or examine the petitioner for mental health which is gross violation of the Regulation. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner was suffering from Schizophrenia at the time of incident and same cannot be regarded as deliberate act of indiscipline. The enquiry officer and the punishing authority have violated the principles of natural justice and therefore the punishment order is liable to be quashed. ORDER The claim petition is allowed partly and the order dated 9.12.2003 is set aside. The period of absence will be regularised as per departmental leave rules against available leave of all Sort.