ORDER Petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order of compulsory retirement passed by the Commandant of 11th Battalion S.A.F. Bhilai on 28/04/2001. 2. At the relevant time petitioner was working as Constable in the 11th Battalion S.A.F. Bhilai. He remained absent from duty w.e.f. 29/07/2000 without seeking permission or giving prior intimation to his superior officer. Petitioner submitted leave application at regular intervals without joining duty and in support of the application he used to submit medical certificates. 3. The Commandant issued a communication to the Civil Surgeon on 25/09/2000 for examining the petitioner from the Medical Board, copy of this communication was also sent to the petitioner on 20/10/2000 and 04/11/2000, however, he did not examine himself before the Medical Board. He was again advised to get himself examined by the Medical Board on 13/12/2000. 4. In the meanwhile, when the petitioner was informed to get himself medically examined, another departmental enquiry was also pending against him and by letter dated 02/09/2000 the Enquiry Officer directed him to remain present before him on 08/09/2000 for recording statement of witnesses B.D. Badgaiyya, M. Xalxo, H.C. Pandey, Mahesh Chandra Yadav, M.K. Koshy, Dilip Rodkar, Ballu Prasad and Lokesh Kerketta. When the petitioner did not appear, similar intimation was again sent to him on 14/09/2000. The envelope filed with the return, along with these communications demonstrate that the petitioner received the document but did not present himself before the Enquiry Officer. On 05/10/2000 the Enquiry Officer again informed the petitioner to remain present for proceeding ahead in the enquiry on 12/10/2000 and thereafter on 20/12/2000, however, the petitioner again failed to appear. In communication dated 27/12/2000 the Enquiry Officer has observed that the petitioner refused to accept the notice sent to him by post. Petitioner was again called to appear on 30/12/2000 and thereafter on 09/03/2001. Another notice was sent on 12/03/2001 informing him that despite repeated notice he is not presenting himself before the Enquiry Officer on pretext or the other and if he fails to remain present before the Enquiry Officer it will be conducted ex-parte. Similar notice was again sent on 04/04/2001 and 17/04/2001 and lastly on 25/04/2001. When the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer the impugned order has been passed. 5. Similar notice was again sent on 04/04/2001 and 17/04/2001 and lastly on 25/04/2001. When the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer the impugned order has been passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner had submitted leave applications, the competent authority was obliged to decide the leave application; however, the impugned order has been passed without deciding his leave application which is illegal and arbitrary. He would submit that the petitioner was not medically fit, therefore, the authority could not have concluded about petitioner’s non-cooperation without verifying the petitioner’s ailment. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel has supported the impugned order. 7. On perusal of the documents available on record and the contents of the impugned order it would manifest that the petitioner remained absent from duty w.e.f. 29/07/2000 and did not appear to join duties despite repeated notice. In an earlier enquiry which was already pending against him, petitioner did not participate even after receiving communication from the Enquiry Officer. In the present episode the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent, therefore, he was advised to get himself examined by Medical Board, however, he did not appear before the Medical Board. 8. With the above background, the impugned order mentions that the petitioner is absconding from duties for last nine months and despite the issuance of show cause notices for joining the duties, he is not paying heed to the orders of the superiors, therefore, the petitioner is compulsorily retired in exercise of powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Under the said provision a person can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank without holding an enquiry, when the authority is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry. 9. In Bakshi Sardari Lal (dead) Through LRs and Others Vs. Union of India and Another (1987) 4 SCC 114 it has been held that when a person avoids service of notice and fails to participate or cooperate with the authorities, the exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b) is justified. 10. In Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others (1996) 10 SCC 659 , AIR 1997 SC 79 it has been held that the satisfaction of the authority with regard to impracticability to hold enquiry is final, provided, the satisfaction is recorded in writing. 11. 10. In Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others (1996) 10 SCC 659 , AIR 1997 SC 79 it has been held that the satisfaction of the authority with regard to impracticability to hold enquiry is final, provided, the satisfaction is recorded in writing. 11. In the case in hand the impugned order records the satisfaction of the authority that since the petitioner is avoiding service of notice it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. Moreover such satisfaction is duly supported by the documents filed along with the return of the State Govt. 12. It is settled law that being a police personnel a member of discipline force, demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedure more than any other department is required (State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another, (1996) 1 SCC 302 ). 13. For the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition being bereft of any substance, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.