Muzaffar Hussain Attar.:-- The respondent, who was working as Constable, was ordered to be dis­missed from service by the Appellant No. 5, vide order No. 1614 of 2005 dated 10.08.2005, on the ground that he had, unauthorisedly, absented himself from duty. The said order was called in ques­tion in SWP 1304/2006. The learned writ Court, vide its order and judgment dated 22-04-2011, allowed the writ pe­tition and set aside the order of dis­missal of the petitioner (respondent herein). The respondents (appellants herein), were directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of J&K Po­lice Rules. Liberty was also given to them to initiate fresh enquiry against the respondent. It was also provided that the treatment, to be meted out to the period from the date of dismissal of the respondent from service to the date he resumed his duties, shall depend upon the outcome of enquiry. It was also provided that in case Appellants decided not to hold departmental enquiry, the aforesaid period shall be settled in ac­cordance with the rules. The appel­lants, feeling aggrieved of the said judg­ment, have challenged the same in this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Appel­lants submitted that the respondent had remained absent from duty for a period of 563 days. He also submitted that the respondent did not associate himself with the enquiry, which com­pelled the Enquiry Officer to proceed against him, ex parte, and after con­clusion of the enquiry, made recom­mendation for dismissal of the respon­dent from service. Learned counsel also submitted that a Show Cause Notice was also issued to the respondent ask­ing him as to why he shall not be dis­missed from service, which even was not responded to by the respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment, in these cir­cumstances, deserves to be set aside. 3. We have perused the writ record and considered the submissions made at the bar by leaned counsel for the Appellants. 4. The respondent absented himself from duty with effect from 01.10.2000. He was placed under suspension with effect from 19.01.2001. He was permit­ted to resume his duties on 16.04.2002. These facts, which are recorded in the impugned judgment and which have not been disputed by the Appellants, would show that after remaining ab­sent for a period of 563 days, the re­spondent was permitted to resume his duties on 16.04.2002. He was placed under suspension with effect from 19.01.2001. He was permit­ted to resume his duties on 16.04.2002. These facts, which are recorded in the impugned judgment and which have not been disputed by the Appellants, would show that after remaining ab­sent for a period of 563 days, the re­spondent was permitted to resume his duties on 16.04.2002. It is not brought on record as to how and for which rea­son, the respondent was permitted to resume his duties. After allowing him to resume his duties, the Appellants initiated departmental enquiry against him vide DPO Order No. 513/02 dated 01.05.2002. The respondent, at that point of time, in view of permitting him to resume his duties, was available with the Appellants. However, in which circumstances, the departmental en­quiry proceeded, ex parte, against the respondent, is not brought on writ record. The learned writ Court, after perusing the record, has recorded a finding that the respondent was not summoned in terms of rule 359 (2) of the Police Rules. This finding recorded by the learned writ Court is not dis­puted by the Appellants. Learned coun­sel for the Appellants, while arguing the case, also did not join issue in re­spect of such finding recorded by the learned writ Court. 5. Chapter XI of the Police Rules deals with the punishment. Rule 334 (1) pro­vide that no Police Officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as prescribed in these Rules. 6. When the competent authority decides to inflict punishment on an employee, then, in view of the mandate contained in rule 334 (1) of the Police Rules, the procedure, provided for con­ducting of departmental enquiries in terms of rule 359 of the Police Rules, has to be followed. Rule 359(2) provides that the Officer conducting the enquiry shall summon the accused police officer before him and shall record and read out to him the statement summa­rizing the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give notice of the circum­stance with regard to which evidence is to be recorded. 7. Rule 359(2) provides that the Officer conducting the enquiry shall summon the accused police officer before him and shall record and read out to him the statement summa­rizing the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give notice of the circum­stance with regard to which evidence is to be recorded. 7. Since, after perusal of record, a finding of fact has been recorded by the learned writ Court that the respondent was not summoned in pursuance to rule 359(2) of the Police Rules, which finding has not been disputed or chal­lenged by the Appellants, what emerges thereof is that the punishment in­flicted on the respondent is illegal, in as much as, there is non compliance of rule 359 of the Police Rules. Rule 359 is a complete code in itself and has to be followed in letter and spirit by the Disciplinary Authority/Competent Au­thority. The enquiry having been, ad­mittedly, conducted in breach of the mandate contained in rule 359 of the Police Rules, in view of the mandate contained in rule 334(1), the punish­ment could not be inflicted on the re­spondent. The Disciplinary Authority has also failed to comply with the man­date contained in Rule 336 and 337 of Police Rules, which provide a safeguard to the service rights of an employee. 8. For our above stated reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, in case Appellants decide to initiate en­quiry against the respondent, then same shall be concluded, preferably, within three months, reckoned from one week from today. The respondent shall be duty bound to cooperate with the Enquiry Officer. However, in case the respondent does not cooperate with the Enquiry Officer, then the Enquiry Officer shall proceed in the matter in accordance with the rules. 9. LPA is dismissed along with CMPs. _________