It is contended that petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Auxiliary Police of Jammu and Kashmir State in 1992. After serving with respondents for a period of seven years, he suffered from a disease known as "Psychosis" due to which he remained under constant medical treatment w.e.f. from 10.05.1999 to 01.06.2001. After he was declared fit by the doctors, he went to join his duties on 01.06.2001, but, came to know that he has already been removed from service in terms of order dated 14.07.1999, impugned in the writ petition. Petitioner immediately filed mercy appeal and thereafter representations against the order of his removal from service, but till date, neither mercy appeal nor the representations filed by him have been decided by the respondents. Faced with this situation, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking quashment of order dated 14.07.1999 on the grounds taken in the petition. It is urged by the petitioner that he came to be removed from service without holding any enquiry and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. It is further submitted that the respondents while removing the petitioner from service have not followed the procedure as required under rules. Respondents have filed the reply stating therein that the petitioner had remained absent un-authorisedly on seventeen occasions for which repeated major/minor punishments were imposed upon him to mend his way of working which he failed, therefore, the version of the petitioner that he was a dedicated official is not based on facts. It is also contended that he was deputed at Police Training Centre, Kathua in May, 1993 for basic training course, which is a precondition for a Constable in Police Force, but, he deserted from training centre, and was, accordingly, reverted back. Petitioner was not formally relieved from the training centre, but, absented and after reporting at; Battalion Headquarters produced medical certificate stating therein that he remained admitted in Mental Hospital w.e.f. 10.05.1999 to 01.06.2001 under the supervision of Dr. S.K. Gupta which, however, after verification revealed that the said doctor did not possess requisite M.D. Psychiatry qualification and, thus, could not have issued such a certificate as per Mental Health Act, 1987. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that removal of petitioner .has been ordered without holding any enquiry. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that removal of petitioner .has been ordered without holding any enquiry. It is alleged that no formal charge was framed, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner to explain his absence, no evidence was recorded nor any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner while imposing the penalty of removal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that any removal or dismissal from service without adopting such a course is hit by the provisions of Constitution of India and cannot, therefore, stand. Facts are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner absented from duty, while working in the Police Department as a Constable. It is averred that he went on leave thereafter, fell ill and could not resume his duties. The fact that he did not resume his duty is also admitted. Respondents in their response stated that the petitioner unauthorisedly absented himself and did not join his duties despite notices issued by the respondents in this behalf. The petitioner as indicated above has been removed/terminated, from. service on the ground of unauthorised absence and failure to resume duty, without any formal enquiry. The department has taken the plea that petitioner had filed undertaking by way of affidavit that he will not leave the headquarters without proper permission, but he failed and absented unauthorisedly and lias kept the; department at liberty to take any action as deemed fit under the ambit of rules. The question which arises for determination in the present case is as to whether the authorities can terminate the service of delinquent employee without resorting to regular enquiry on the ground that the said official absent unauthorisedly. It be seen that no member of a State service or a person holding the post under the State can be removed from service save otherwise in accordance with the requirements of Section 126(2) of the State Constitution read with Article 311 of the Indian Constitution which contemplates conveying the specific charges to the delinquent and providing him a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard and then his removal from service after an enquiry. Section 126(2) of the State Constitution provides for an additional safeguard of a second show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment to be imposed. Section 126(2) of the State Constitution provides for an additional safeguard of a second show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment to be imposed. It be also seen that in terms of the J&K Police Rules governing the field, no employee shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as prescribed in the police rules. Under the rules before imposing a major punishment which includes removal from service, the authorities have to hold a regular enquiry into the conduct of the official. Rule 359 of Jammu and Kashmir Rules, which in clear sense, provides that the delinquent police official shall be given an opportunity to meet the charge(s) levelled against him, but sub rule (2) of the rule specifically provides such official has to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the proposed penalty. In terms of the aforesaid Rules, the petitioner was to be given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action against him. There can be no doubt that absence from duty without a proper permission or overstaying a leave without any valid and justified reason is the gravest type of misconduct, particularly for a member of the disciplined force from whom strict adherence to the rules is expected. Thus, unauthorised absence amounts to misconduct necessitating holding of an enquiry against a delinquent official. Where there is overstaying of leave and absence from duty without justification, it would be misconduct justifying penalty even up to the extent of dismissal, but, the concerned employee must be given an opportunity of being heard before any prejudicial action is taken. Even otherwise, action of the respondents is violative of principles of natural justice which demand that no body should be condemned unheard. The delinquent official is required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before any administrative action is taken against him. In AIR 2005 SC 2090 , Ceinara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, the Apex Court has held as under:- 10. The adherence in principles of natural justice as recognized by all eivilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alter am par tem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alter am par tem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him this is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historc document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the “Magna Carta”. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to “vocate interrogate and adjudicate”. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works. (1963) 143 ER 414, the principle was thus stated: “Even God did not pass a sentence upon Asam before he was called upon to make his defence . “Adam” says God, “where art thou has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that though should not eat”. Since then the principle has been chiseled honed and refined enriching its content judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept like polishing of a diamond. In para 12 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has further held as under :- “What is meant by the term principles of natural justice is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton. L.J.) in Ray v. Local Government Board (19614) 1 KB 160 at p. 199:83 LJKB 86) described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In para 12 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has further held as under :- “What is meant by the term principles of natural justice is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton. L.J.) in Ray v. Local Government Board (19614) 1 KB 160 at p. 199:83 LJKB 86) described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. v. Sanekman (1943) AC 627:[1948] 2 All ER 17 Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt to force it into any procusteam bed and mentioned that the Tribunal should be impartial and have no personal interest in the controversy and further that it should give a full and fair opportunity to every party of being heard. In P.D. Dinakaran (1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee and others reported in 2011(8) SCC 380 , it is held in paras 31 and 32 as under :- 31. The consideration of the aforesaid question needs to be prefaced by a brief reference to the nature and scope of the rule against bias and how the same has been applied by the courts of common law jurisdiction in India for invalidating judicial and administrative actions/orders. Natural justice is a branch of public law. It is a formidable weapon which can be wielded to secure justice to citizens. Rules of natural justice are "basis values" which a man has cherised throughout the ages. Principles of natural justice control all actions of public authorities by applying rules relating to reasonableness, good faith and justice, equity and good conscience. Natural justice is a part of law which relates to administration of justice. Rules of natural justice are indeed great assurances of justice and fairness. The underlying object of the rule- of natural justice is to ensure fundamental liberties and rights of subjects. They thus serve public interest. The golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. 32. The underlying object of the rule- of natural justice is to ensure fundamental liberties and rights of subjects. They thus serve public interest. The golden rule which stands firmly established is that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent miscarriage of justice. 32. The traditional English Law recognized the following two principles of natural justice :- "(a) Nemo debert esse judex in propria causa : No man shall be a judge in his own cause, or no man can act as both at the one and the same time= a party or a suitor and also as a Judge, or the deciding authority must be impartial and without bias; and (b) Audi altera pattern: Hear the other side, or both the sides must be heard, or no man should be condemned unheard, or that there must be fairness on the part of the deciding authority." However, over the years, the courts throughout the world have discovered new facets of the rules of natural justice and applied them to judicial, quashi-judicial and even administrative actions/decision. At the same time, the courts have repeatedly emphasized that the rules of natural justice are flexible and their application depends upon the facts of a given case and the statutory provisions applicable, if any, nature of the right which may be affected and the consequences which may follow due to violation of the rules of natural justice." I am also fortified by the view taken by the Apex Court in a judgment titled Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2010(10) SCC 539 , wherein it is held as under:- 16. We have to proceed keeping keeping the trite law that holding disciplinary proceedings against a government employee and imposing a punishment on his being found guilty of misconduct under the statutory rules is, in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings. Though, the technical rules of procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in a domestic enquiry, however, the principles of natural justice require to he observed strictly. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. Therefore, the enquiry is to be conducted fairly and reasonably and the enquiry report must contain reasons for reaching the conclusion that the charge framed against the delinquent stood proved against him. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. Punishment for misconduct can be imposed in consonance with the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. ..." Had the delinquent official was provided an opportunity of being heard, perhaps he would have demonstrated before the Inquiry Officer that absence from the duties was not wilful, but, was for the reasons beyond his control. In the present case, petitioner is claiming that he was incapacitated to attend the duties because of ailment of the disease known as "Psychosis". Therefore, observance of principle of natural justice, at least, in the instant case could not have been dispensed with as the same has caused serious prejudice to the 'petitioner inasmuch as he has not been afforded adequate opportunity to explain his absence. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases and for the reasons given hereinabove, it can be said that removal of the petitioner from service has been ordered without holding any regular enquiry, and an opportunity of being heard has to be provided to the delinquent official before taking punitive action against him, even though, this would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. But, in the present case, facts clearly show that the petitioner has been condemned unheard and penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon him without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, enquiry is necessitated against him to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the given circumstances, this petition is allowed. Order impugned No. 536 of 1999 dated 14.07.1999 is quashed. Respondents are at liberty to conduct regular enquiry against the petitioner, of course, in accordance with rules occupying the field and complete the same within a period of two months from the date a copy of the-order is served upon them. They shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the process of enquiry. Petitioner shall be at liberty to place before the. Enquiry Officer his pleas as also material in support of his case. His retention or otherwise in service shall depend on the outcome of such enquiry. Disposed of along with connected CMA(s), if any.