JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri S.A. Gilani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for respondents. 2. The petitioner was posted as Constable in the Office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut. He was implicated in a case under Section 365/120 IPC. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner applied for leave on 3.10.1992 on the ground that the police officers of Saharanpur will arrest and kill him showing his death in an encounter. The petitioner surrendered on 19.10.1992 in Court, and was confined to Jail till 21.10.1992, and thereafter, he joined his duties in the record office on 22.10.1992. The allegations and the circumstances of the criminal case have not been brought on record. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was suspended on 17.11.1992, and was served with a charge-sheet dated 1.2.1993 for remaining absent without leave for 30 days. The petitioner applied for transferring his enquiry to some other District except Meerut and Saharanpur. The application was not considered and thereafter dates were fixed for enquiry in which the petitioner did not appear. The proceeding was concluded ex parte. The petitioner thereafter submitted his explanation to the show cause dated 29.5.1993 and to the report of the Enquiry Officer and his findings. It is alleged that while considering explanation, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut dismissed him from service by his order dated 1.6.2003. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by order dated 9.12.1993. 4. The petitioner preferred a claim petition, in the State Public Services Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition with the findings that the petitioner was posted in S.S.P. Office, Meerut and he could easily inform and intimate his senior officers about the criminal case. He deliberately did not choose to inform them immediately. Later he sent an application from Saharanpur perhaps after taking legal advice or so. The Tribunal has observed that it is not understood as to why the petitioner went to join in the record room whereas he was posted in S.S.P. Office, Meerut. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on 18.12.1998 giving rise to this petition. 5. Sri S.A. Gilani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for leave, his application for leave was not disposed of by the competent authorities. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on 18.12.1998 giving rise to this petition. 5. Sri S.A. Gilani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for leave, his application for leave was not disposed of by the competent authorities. The petitioner had joined his duties immediately after his release from jail and that the circumstances in which he absented were not considered by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. 6. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Virendra Kumar v. Union of India and others, 2009 (1) ESC 1 (All)(DB) : 2008(10) ADJ 112 (DB) in submitting that punishment is grossly disproportionate to the allegations made against the petitioner, as he was absent from duty for only 30 days. In Virendra Kumar’s case, the Court has considered the absence of Assistant Commandant, CRPF and found his absence from duties to be justified. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has not disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the FIR was lodged against him. It is stated that the trial is still pending. The application made by the petitioner to the S.S.P, Meerut on 3.10.1992 was to the effect that he apprehends arrest and encounter by Sri M.S. Rathor, Sub Inspector from Saharanpur. The application completely belies his case that he was ill and applied leave on medical ground. The petitioner was running away from Saharanpur Police. He surrendered under the legal advice on 19.10.1992, and was released on 21.10.1992. The petitioner did not inform his superior about the facts under which he was implicated, and his confinement in the jail. After his release from jail, he joined in the record room instead of joining at the office where he was posted. No explanation was given by him for not joining at the office where he was posted. These facts and circumstances would show gross indiscipline on the part of the petitioner serving as a constable in civil police. In order to apply the principle of proportionately, which are essentially the principles of equity, full and complete facts should have been placed before the Court. The petitioner has not given the circumstances in which he was charge-sheeted in a criminal case either before the disciplinary authority, tribunal or even this Court. 8.We do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. ————