JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a constable in the year 1983. On 30.12.1993 he was issued a command for his deployment at Tehta Out Post for law and order duty but instead of reporting and joining the said Out Post, he absconded for 393 days and reported for duty only on 27.1.1995. Petitioner came to be proceeded against departmentally and with the finding of the petitioner absconding from duty for 393 days, the order of punishment in the shape of dismissal from service came to be passed. The said order is Annexure-6 to the writ application. Even his appeal and memorial contained in Annexures-7 and stood rejected. 3. Petitioner challenged all these orders in the present writ application primarily on the pround that Rule 843 of the Bihar Police Manual had not been followed in the sense that the authority did not get a local enquiry held by local Superintendent of Police/Commandant from where the petitioner belongs and in absence of such an enquiry the holding of departmental enquiry and the order of dismissal has to be declared to be in breach of such a provision and therefore interference is warranted. 4. Rule 843 of the Police Manual is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "Punishment for absence without leave.Wilful overstayal of leave or absence from duty without leave shall be treated as misbehaviour and after obtaining the explanation of the officer concerned proceedings shall invariably be drawn up and departmental punishment inflicted. If after explanation, it appears that a police officer had remained absent from duty due to any sufficient reason he shall be granted leave admissible to him for that period. If it is proved that he has violated the rules at his own will, he can be inflicted with any punishment as provided in Rule 824. The Police Officer who shall be absent from duty without permission shall be liable under Section 29 of the Act V of 1861, as amended by Section 9 of the Act VIII of 1895. Such action however, should be taken only in special circumstances. The Police Officer who shall be absent from duty without permission shall be liable under Section 29 of the Act V of 1861, as amended by Section 9 of the Act VIII of 1895. Such action however, should be taken only in special circumstances. As a rule whenever an officer does not return in time on duty, enquiries shall be made by the Superintendent/Commandant within one week from the S.P. of his native district, and should there appear that the officer has not returned to his duties in time for good reasons he should be suspended and departmental proceeding should be undertaken as per rule." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are a few orders to show that where a local enquiry had not been held by the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commandant when an officer does not return to duty in time, then the subsequent departmental proceeding is vitiated for breach of Rule 843. 6. On a reading of the above rule or provision, referred to above, one fact which emerges according to the opinion of this Court is that the so-called enquiry or verification about the whereabouts of a person absconding from duty is only to find out his status or may be the reason for his not reporting to the force after expiry of the period of the granted or authorized leave. The object of Rule 843 is not to hold an enquiry within an enquiry, but verify whether the person is still alive, dead or is absconding intentionally and whether there is any possibility of the person reporting back to the force or not. 7. In the present case according to averment of the petitioner, he himself reported back to the authority after 393 days on 27.1.1995. If he had already reported back to the force then where was the occasion for the authority to request or direct the local Superintendent of Police/Commandant to hold an enquiry about the whereabouts the petitioner in terms of Rule 843 of the Police Manual. It is only after the petitioner reported to the force the enquiry was held, finding of guilt was recorded and punishment of dismissal order has been passed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to bring some prescriptions of a doctor on record to show that his son was ailing and that was the reason which held him back. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to bring some prescriptions of a doctor on record to show that his son was ailing and that was the reason which held him back. 9. According to him, he had valid reason for not reporting to duty for more than a year. There is no evidence of proof that the petitioner had sent any information to the force that he was not in a position to report to the force or duty even after his period of leave had expired. 10. Though Annexure-2 is supposed to be the evidence produced by the petitioner of a communication but there is nothing to support that it related to his inability to not report. 11. Even during the course of submission the Court put a categorical question to the petitioner about the nature of the illness of the son which required him to be held back for more than a year from service but except stating that prescriptions are there, he has no knowledge what was the ailment he was suffering from. Obviously this prescription has been procured only to justify his absence from duty. It is also stated that the petitioner was also suffering from mental illness and could not report to force. 12. Since the petitioner was a Government servant he had an obligation to report to the authority and seek whatever medical advice and help he could take from the authorized Government Hospitals or Dispensary. Making private arrangement whose authenticity any way is doubtful, cannot justify the absence for more than a year. 13. The case has to be decided in the light of fact that the petitioner is supposed to be a part and parcel of the disciplined force and he has an obligation to maintain certain discipline and conduct which goes with the post he was holding. It is not a fit case where interference is required with the order of dismissal when finding of guilt is there in the enquiry. 14. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.