JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Bhoopendra Nath Singh, for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 21.2.2002 passed by the Commandant, 28th Battalion, P.A.C., Etawah, dismissing the petitioner from service and withholding salary during 7.10.2001 to 8.12.2001 and order dated 17.7.2002 passed by Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C. Agra Sector, Agra, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order dated 22.1.2003 passed by Inspector General, P.A.C., Western Zone, Moradabad, dismissing revision of the petitioner from the aforesaid order. 3. The petitioner was appointed as constable in P.A.C. in the year 1988. At the relevant time, he was posted at 28th Battalion, P.A.C., Etawah. On 7.10.2001, the petitioner was assigned duty in ‘Duty Area Ist’ from 24.00 hours to 04.00 hours but he did not attend his duty and found absent. Later on, he came back on 8.12.2001 on duty, along with medical certificate and application for sanctioning leave during this period. On preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty for absenting from duty for a period of 63 days and leaving headquarter during this period without any information. The Deputy Commandant issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on 1.1.2002, asking him to submit his reply within 10 days. The petitioner, by his application dated 7.1.2002, demanded copies of the preliminary inquiry report and the papers collected during it. On which, he was permitted to examine/inspect the record of preliminary inquiry. Later on, he made an endorsement on his application that he had examined the record and was satisfied. The petitioner moved another application on 8.1.2002 before the Inquiry Officer that two weeks time be granted for filing his reply. On which the petitioner was permitted to submit his reply up to 14.1.2002. The petitioner submitted his reply on 14.1.2002 stating therein that on 7.10.2001, one Matadeen Pal, a resident of his village, had come to meet him. The petitioner went to Etawah market along with him, where he realized acute pain in his abdomen. Due to pain, he was so much frightened and unconscious that he was taken to Gwalior for his treatment by his friend, without any information in the office. He was treated in Civil Hospital Gwalior. The doctor detected ‘Emuvisis Colitis’ and advised for full treatment and rest. Therefore, he was getting treatment at Gwalior. Due to pain, he was so much frightened and unconscious that he was taken to Gwalior for his treatment by his friend, without any information in the office. He was treated in Civil Hospital Gwalior. The doctor detected ‘Emuvisis Colitis’ and advised for full treatment and rest. Therefore, he was getting treatment at Gwalior. After recovery, he joined his duties on 8.12.2001 along with medical certificates and the application for grant of leave during this period. 4. The Inquiry Officer granted time for submitting reply up to 14.1.2002. He by letter dated 14.1.2002 fixed 14.1.2002 for holding inquiry and started inquiry on 14.1.2002. He recorded statement of the departmental witnesses namely Vakeel Khan, clerk, Rakesh Kumar, Clerk (character roll), Anil Kumar Singh P.C., Rameshwar Prasad, CHM, Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, constable, Lakshmiram Yadav, group commandant, Shiv Shankar Chaubey, constable, Jitendra Pal Singh, constable, Ganga Narain Mishra, Assistant Commandant, Yogendra Singh constable, who have proved that the petitioner was assigned duty on 7.10.2001 at 24.00 hour but had not attended his duty on 7.10.2001. Suresh Kumar, constable and Pratap Singh constable were examined to prove that during the period the petitioner was absent, they went to the village of the petitioner along with the letter of the Commandant for calling him but in the village they were informed that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital at Gwalior for his treatment. The Inquiry Officer then by letter dated 17.1.2002, granted 7 days time to the petitioner for producing his evidence. On 24.1.2002, the petitioner moved an application for summoning the witnesses, giving names of 4 witnesses. The Inquiry Officer refused to summon the witnesses and got an endorsement of the petitioner on his application that he was granted time for adducing evidence, but he could not adduce any evidence, therefore, he had not pressed his application for summoning the witnesses. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 7.2.2002 holding the petitioner as guilty for not attending duty on 7.10.2001 and absconding from the headquarter without any information and remaining absent for a period of 63 days. 5. On receiving the Inquiry report, the Commandant by order dated 7.2.2002 directed for issue of show-cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 7.2.2002 holding the petitioner as guilty for not attending duty on 7.10.2001 and absconding from the headquarter without any information and remaining absent for a period of 63 days. 5. On receiving the Inquiry report, the Commandant by order dated 7.2.2002 directed for issue of show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application on 14.2.2002 for changing the Inquiry Officer on the allegations that he had made a complaint against the Inquiry Officer for the misbehabior committed by him due to which he was acting in a biased manner and has not conducted fair inquiry. Thereafter, he moved another application on 17.2.2002 for granting 15 days time for submitting his explanation to the show-cause notice and Inquiry Report and also requested for providing all the papers of Inquiry proceedings. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 20.2.2002. In which, he has again stated that on 7.10.2001, when he had gone to Etawah Bazar alongwith his villager Matadeen Pal, due to acute pain in abdomen, he had become unconscious and his friends Matadeen Pal arranged for a taxi and took him to Gwalior, where he was admitted in Civil Hospital. During his treatment, he had sent various application through post regarding his leave. Allegations against the Inquiry Officer was again made in it. However the Commandant by order dated 21.2.2002 held that reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory. As the petitioner has not followed the provisions of Regulations-381, 382 and 383 of U.P. Police Regulations as such medical certificate of the petitioner was liable to be ignored. The petitioner willfully absented from his duties without any information and remained absent for 63 days without leave. On these findings, the order dismissing the petitioner from service and withholding his salary during period in which he was absent was passed on 21.2.2002. 6. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C., Agra, who by order dated 17.7.2002 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has also been dismissed by Inspector General of P.A.C., Moradabad Zone, Moradabad by order dated 22.1.2003. 7. 6. The petitioner filed an appeal from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C., Agra, who by order dated 17.7.2002 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision from the aforesaid order which has also been dismissed by Inspector General of P.A.C., Moradabad Zone, Moradabad by order dated 22.1.2003. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Inquiry Officer, Sri Phool Singh Verma (respondent-3) was biased against the petitioner as that he had made complaint against him on 4.9.2001 for the misbehabior committed by him. Due to which respondent-3 was having ill will against the petitioner. No paper has been supplied to the petitioner along with charge-sheet as required under the Rules. The petitioner through his application dated 7.1.2002 demanded the papers but he had refused to supply any paper and by exercising undue pressure obtained an endorsement of the petitioner on the application that he had examined/inspected the record. He although granted time for filing reply up to 14.1.2002 but in a haste manner, he by letter dated 14.1.2002 fixed 14.1.2002 for the inquiry. The petitioner, by application dated 24.1.2002, requested for summoning the witnesses. The Inquiry Officer again refused to summon the witnesses and by exercising undue pressure got an endorsement of the petitioner on the application that he had not pressed his application. The petitioner moved an application dated 14.2.2002 for changing the Inquiry Officer and holding fresh inquiry but no order has been passed on it. Thus no fair inquiry as provided under Rule-7 and 14 of the U.P. Police Officer of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991(hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1991) has been conducted. He further submitted that mere absence from duty is itself not sufficient for dismissal from service. The petitioner has filed medical certificate issued by a doctor of Government hospital, report of pathological examination and other prescription of the doctors in order to prove that during period of absence he was admitted in the hospital and was under treatment. This period cannot be treated as willful absence from duty. Regulations 381, 382 and 383 of the U.P. Police Regulation give a discretion to disbelieve the medical certificate, in case information of treatment has not been given to the police officer, according to these regulations. This period cannot be treated as willful absence from duty. Regulations 381, 382 and 383 of the U.P. Police Regulation give a discretion to disbelieve the medical certificate, in case information of treatment has not been given to the police officer, according to these regulations. The petitioner has filed various certificates issued by post office to prove that information was sent regarding treatment, time to time. There was no reason to disbelieve the medical certificate. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate and revisional authority has considered the grievances of the petitioner and passed the impugned orders in a routine manner without application of mind. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. Rule-14 of the Rules, 1991 provides that subject to the provisions contained in these Rules, the departmental proceedings in the cases referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 against a Police Officers may be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix I. The relevant portion of Appendix I is quoted below : Upon institution of a formal inquiry, such Police officer against whom the inquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which was proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of definite charge or charges as in Form 1 appended to these Rules which shall be accompanied to the charged Police Officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged Police Officer of the facts and circumstances against him. Form-1 provides that the evidence which it proposed to consider in support of the charge shall be supplied to the Police Officer. Further Rule-7 (v) provides that charge-sheet along with copy of documentary evidences mentioned therin and list of witnesses and their statements, if any shall be served on the charged employee personally. Admittedly no paper/evidence has been supplied to the petitioner along with charge-sheet. The petitioner through his application dated 7.1.2002 demanded copies of the evidence but in stead of supplying the evidence, the Inquiry Officer got an endorsement of the petitioner that he has examined the record. Thus provisions of Rule-7 (v) of the Rules, 1991 has not been followed. Admittedly no paper/evidence has been supplied to the petitioner along with charge-sheet. The petitioner through his application dated 7.1.2002 demanded copies of the evidence but in stead of supplying the evidence, the Inquiry Officer got an endorsement of the petitioner that he has examined the record. Thus provisions of Rule-7 (v) of the Rules, 1991 has not been followed. Although statements recorded during preliminary inquiry has been relied upon but it’s copies were not supplied to the petitioner which has caused material prejudice to the petitioner. Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal, (1998) 6 SCC 651 , held that if the statements recorded during preliminary inquiry were relied for imposing punishment then it’s copies were required to be supplied to the employee. Non supply of these papers amounts to material prejudice to the employee. 9. Inquiry Report shows that it contain 80 pages. Alongwith Inquiry Report and show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, other papers forming part of the Inquiry proceedings were not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner again through his application dated 17.2.2002 requested for supply of the papers but these papers were not supplied. In the absence of copies of the evidence collected during inquiry it was not possible for the petitioner to give his reply. Issue of show-cause notice without copies of the evidence was merely an empty formality and does not amount to give reasonable opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, (1999) SCC (L&S) 429, held that evidence collected during inquiry were required to be supplied. 10. Rule-7 (viii) makes provision for summoning the witnesses by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner moved an application on 24.1.2002 for summoning the witnesses. There was no reason for the petitioner for not pressing this application. These witnesses were vital for the petitioner to prove his case. But as stated the Inquiry Officer refused to summon these witnesses and got an endorsement of the petitioner on this application that as he could not produce these witnesses as such he had not pressed it. There appears no reason for not pressing this application except the undue pressure by the Inquiry Officer for not pressing this application. Thus the Inquiry Officer has illegally failed to exercise his power vested under the law in not summoning the witnesses. 11. There appears no reason for not pressing this application except the undue pressure by the Inquiry Officer for not pressing this application. Thus the Inquiry Officer has illegally failed to exercise his power vested under the law in not summoning the witnesses. 11. The petitioner, in paragraph-11 of the writ petition, has made allegations of mala fide against Sri Phool Singh Verma, Inquiry Officer. Similar allegations have been made before all the authorities. The conduct of inquiry officer, in not supplying the papers to the petitioner as required under Rules-7 and 14, Appendix I, not summoning the witnesses of the petitioner under Rule-7 (viii), showing hot haste in conducting the inquiry and getting endorsements on the applications moved by the petitioner that he had not pressed, prove that inquiry was not conducted in a fair manner. The petitioner has moved an application for changing the Inquiry Officer but the Disciplinary Authority has not taken any notice of it. The petitioner, who was a constable, could not make any better effort than what had been done by him. In such circumstances it is proved that inquiry has not been conducted according to the procedure provided under Rule7 and 14 of the Rules, 1991 due to which material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. Accordingly allegations of mala fide is fully proved as held by Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, AIR 2001 SC 343 . 12. Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 , held as follows: “28.An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. 29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental inquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The inquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a Government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service.” 13. The petitioner took plea that on 7.11.2001, all of a sudden, when he had gone to Etawah Bazar along with Matadeen Pal, a man of his village, realized acute pain in his abdomen. Due to which, he was frightened and became unconscious. Matadeen Pal, in order to provide better treatment arranged for a taxi and got him admitted in Civil Hospital Gwalior, where he got treatment. In support of his allegations, he has also produced medical certificate issued from the Government Hospital, pathology reports, prescription of medicine and also certificate of posting issued by the post office showing that due information regarding treatment was given time to time to the officers concerned. Regulations 381, 382 and 383 requires for giving information regarding treatment to the police officer and in it’s absence, the medical certificate may be disbelieved. Thus Regulations 381, 382 and 383 give a discretion either to believe or disbelieve. The discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. The petitioner has proved that he had given information regarding his treatment time to time. He has moved an application for summoning the doctor who has treated him but the doctor and other witnesses were illegally not summoned. From the statements of Suresh Kumar, constable and Pratap Singh, the departmental witnesses also it is proved that at the time when these constables visited the village of the petitioner, he was not found at his home but was informed to be admitted in the hospital in Gwalior. Thus there was ample evidence on record to prove that the petitioner was actually hospitalized during the period of his absence from duty. Thus there was ample evidence on record to prove that the petitioner was actually hospitalized during the period of his absence from duty. The Supreme Court in Krushakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and others, (2012) 3 SCC 178 , has held that mere absence from duty is not sufficient for dismissal. There must be willful absence in order to constitute misconduct amounting to dismissal of an employee. There was no reason to disbelieve the medical certificate. At any rate there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner was willfully absent from duty. 14. From the aforesaid discussion it is proved that inquiry against the petitioner has not been conducted according to the procedure provided under Rules-7 and 14 read with Appendix I of the Rules, 1991, which has caused the material prejudice to the petitioner. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated 21.2.2002 passed by the Commandant, 28th Battalion, P.A.C., Etawah, dismissing the petitioner from service and withholding salary during 7.10.2001 to 8.12.2001 and order dated 17.7.2002 passed by Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C. Agra Sector Agra, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and order dated 22.1.2003 passed by Inspector General, P.A.C., Western Zone Moradabad dismissing revision of the petitioner are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service. It shall be open to the Commandant, P.A.C., Etawah to conduct fresh inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. The back wages will depend upon the out come of the inquiry.