JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner was working as an Inspector of Police, P.S. Baraut, District-Meerut and now retired from service. He was in the office of the Additional Commissioner (Food) at Allahabad when this writ petition was filed. 3. The facts of the case are that while he was posted as Inspector of Police, P.S. Baraut, District-Meerut; he was entrusted investigation of Case Crime No. 14 of 1992 under Sections 365/302/201, IPC, Police Station-Ramala, District-Meerut. The aforesaid case was earlier investigated by Sub-Inspector Lekh Raj Singh and thereafter by M.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police. 4. It is averred in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that before the investigation was entrusted to the petitioner, the first Investigating Officer Lekh Raj Singh had conducted enquiry from 1.2.1992 to 4.2.1992. Thereafter a complaint having been made, second Investigating Officer M.P. Singh conducted the investigation from 4.2.1992 to 7.2.1992 and thereafter by the petitioner as the third Investigating Officer from 7.2.1992 to 15.4.1992. The charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner against the accused persons before the Court. It was registered and committed to the Court of sessions. 5. It appears that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 22.5.1995 directing him to show cause as to why he may not be given adverse entry in the service record for alleged carelessness and irregularities in discharge of his duties while investigating the aforesaid case which was entrusted to him. On the receipt of the notice, the petitioner replied to the same and also requested by means of repeated representations for issuance of the copies of relevant documents relied upon, in order to facilitate him to give his explanation to the aforesaid show cause notice. 6. It is urged by the petitioner that the said relevant documents were not supplied to him on the ground that there is no provision for supply of required documents to a delinquent employee and petitioner was directed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut to furnish his explanation by 8.12.1995 or else the final order will be passed ex parte. In the circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to submit his explanation without aid of the desired documents required for his defence. Consequently, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut accorded adverse entry for the year 1992, vide order dated 16.1.1996. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to submit his explanation without aid of the desired documents required for his defence. Consequently, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut accorded adverse entry for the year 1992, vide order dated 16.1.1996. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.1996, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut Region, Meerut who rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide its order dated 11.6.1997, allegedly without application of mind. Aggrieved by order dated 11.6.1997, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No. 2 but the same was also dismissed by respondent No. 2 on 10.12.1997. 8. The petitioner has also been punished for second time as the department again proceeded in similar manner while the petitioner was posted at Ghaziabad. After taking four days’ casual leave duly sanctioned, he left for his home town at Allahabad, he was to attend his duties at Ghaziabad on 16.4.1995. It is urged by the petitioner that all of sudden, he fell ill on 14.4.1994 and took initial treatment in Geeta Nursing Home at Allahabad for two days but as no improvement was noticed, he rushed to T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad where he remained under treatment as out-door patient till 14.7.1994. After being declared fit, the petitioner joined his duties on 15.7.1994 at Ghaziabad and on being informed about his transfer during the aforesaid period of his treatment when he had been on medical leave, he immediately joined at his transferred place of posting. 9. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had informed about his illness from time to time as well as for extension of leave on 15.4.1994, 25.4.1994, 9.5.1994, 22.5.1994, 30.5.1994, 6.6.1994, 21.6.1994 and 29.6.1994 to S.S.P. Ghaziabad through Superintendent of Police, Allahabad on 18.4.1994 and 20.5.1994. It is also submitted by him that the medical certificate issued were also counter signed by C.M.O. Allahabad recommending extension of leave on account of medical ground. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 11.8.1994 issued by S.S.P. Ghaziabad requiring him to explain as to why the period of alleged unauthorized absence may not be granted as leave without pay. 11. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 11.8.1994 issued by S.S.P. Ghaziabad requiring him to explain as to why the period of alleged unauthorized absence may not be granted as leave without pay. 11. The petitioner submitted his reply reiterating factum of his sudden illness, and of making applications for extension of leave from time to time along with medical certificates duly counter signed by the C.M.O. It is urged by the petitioner that ignoring the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the S.S.P. Ghaziabad vide its order dated 13.12.1995 accorded adverse entry to the petitioner in his service book. 12. The petitioner again filed appeal against the order dated 13.12.1995 passed by S.S.P. Ghaziabad giving adverse entry. The appeal was rejected by respondent No. 3, vide his order dated 20.11.1996. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No. 2 on 15.2.1997 which has also been rejected on 18.8.1999. 13. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondents No. 2 and 3 did not consider the explanation of the petitioner and had mechanically confirmed the order of adverse entry given by S.S.P. Ghaziabad which was without jurisdiction, since the petitioner on 15.7.1994 already had been retired from Ghaziabad and had gone to join duties at his transferred place and was not under the control of the Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, as such punishment given by him awarding adverse entry for alleged unauthorized leave, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It appears from the record that the relevant documents required by the petitioner in this instance were also not given to him. 14. In support of his case, the petitioner further submits that it is well settled that the preliminary enquiry cannot be made a basis for punishment as held in a decision reported in 1997 (III) U.P. Services Cases 40 and AIR 1959 All 47 in which it has been held that defective enquiry or preliminary inquiry cannot be made the basis for punishment. 15. 15. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 in which it has been averred that the petitioner has neither enclosed any application with the writ petition nor any application of the petitioner is available in the office of respondent No. 5; that the petitioner was permitted to peruse the record copy of which was requested by him for the purpose of filing his reply but he did not approach the concerned authorities to avail the opportunity. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that from perusal of Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it is apparent that there is no provision for providing relevant documents to a delinquent employee. 16. From reading of Annexure-2 it is not clear as to on what date and at which place the petitioner was to see the records. There is also no specific denial in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had been given inquiry report. 17. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of record and judgment cited at the Bar, it appears that the Apex Court in its judgment rendered in 1986 (1) SLR 514 has held that "the factum of sickness has to be accepted on the basis of medical certificate in the absence of any proof to the contrary”. However in the instant case at hand neither the doctor nor the CMO were examined before awarding adverse entry in service book of the petitioner. 18. The Supreme Court has also held in AIR 1996 SC 1302 (1303) that ‘Non-supply of copy of enquiry report amounts to denial of opportunity’. 19. Thus, the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated with documentary evidence in respect of his sickness and continuous treatment, while respondents could not prove their case. 20. It is clear that the petitioner had fully complied with the relevant paras i.e. 381 to 383 of Police Regulations. From the record it appears that the petitioner was neither instrumental in delaying the investigation nor he was given full opportunity of hearing before awarding adverse entries as no date or place had been informed to him for perusal of the record copies of which were requested by him for his defence, hence it cannot be said principles of natural justice were followed. Any person can fall ill but if he complies with the rules by informing the authorities concerned and submission of Medical Certificates he should normally not be awarded punishment which is not as in the instant case. 21. The orders awarding adverse entry to the petitioner have been passed, arbitrarily and against principles of natural justice. The punishment being too harsh as well as disproportionate is liable to be quashed. 22. In the circumstances, for all the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 13.12.1995 passed by respondent No. 4 awarding adverse entries to the petitioner for his alleged unauthorized absence on account of his illness, as also the orders dated 20.11.1996 and 18.8.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 16.1.1996 passed by respondent No. 5 are quashed. No order as to cost. ————