JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. N Nath, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Ms. M Bhattacharjee, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate who appears for all the respondents. Since the two writ petitions involve common questions and filed by the same petitioner, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Wireless Technician) (S.I. (WT) for short) vide appointment letter dated 5.12.2001 (Annexure-1) subject to police verification report and production of medical fitness certificate. Besides other terms and conditions, the appointment letter provided that the petitioner will have to undergo the Police Basic Drill and Discipline Training of 39 weeks’ duration. Thereafter on successful completion, he would be required to undergo and complete the Grade-III and Grade-II Police Wireless Technician Trade Course of 9 months and 6 months duration respectively in order to qualify as S.I. (WT) Grade-II. 3. In terms of the letter of appointment, the petitioner joined the post and completed 21 months training. Barring the Grade-III and Grade-II Police Wireless Technician Trade Course, the petitioner has completed his training for the other courses indicated in the appointment letter. According to the petitioner, he was initially posted at Darrang district and subsequently transferred to Karimganj district and he has rendered his service for the last 13 years. The petitioner having not completed his training course in the Grade-III and Grade-II was asked to complete the remaining training course but since the petitioner considered himself not to be physically fit for such training, the petitioner through his wife submitted a representation before the Governor of Assam seeking relaxation under Rule-23 of the Assam Police Manual and to consider change of his trade from Wireless Technician to Operating trade. The Governor of Assam vide communication dated 2.11.2012, directed the respondent No. 4 (Director General of Police, Communication) to examine and consider the application of the petitioner for trade conversion. 4. The petitioner again on 10.4.2014 (Annexure-8) submitted a representation for relaxation as per Rules and for trade conversion. The said representation was received by the respondent authorities on 2.5.2014. The Governor of Assam vide communication dated 2.11.2012, directed the respondent No. 4 (Director General of Police, Communication) to examine and consider the application of the petitioner for trade conversion. 4. The petitioner again on 10.4.2014 (Annexure-8) submitted a representation for relaxation as per Rules and for trade conversion. The said representation was received by the respondent authorities on 2.5.2014. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was drawn up against him under Section 65 of the Assam Police Act, 2007 read with Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual Part-III, Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1964 for his indiscipline and unbecoming conduct rendering him unfit for retention in the police force. The departmental proceeding was drawn up vide D.O. No. 437 dated 29.4.2014 (Annexure-9) with a copy marked to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed WP(C) No. 2893 of 2014 which however, due to the developments in the case was withdrawn by him with liberty to file afresh through order dated 6.2.2015 (Annexure-18). 5. The petitioner thereafter, filed WP(C) No. 923 of 2015 challenging the drawal of departmental proceeding against him and the communication dated 15.07.2014 by which by which his application for trade conversion was rejected. Subsequently, he also filed WP(C) No. 3561 of 2015 for setting aside the second show cause notice dated 30.04.2016 as well as order of termination from service dated 30.05.2016. 6. The first show cause notice dated 15.05.2014 (Annexure-10), the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be punished for his gross unbecoming conduct on the charges provided therein requiring him to submit his written statements of defense within 10 days from the date of receipt of the communication. The charges are reproduced below for ready reference: “That, as per your appointment terms and conditions you are to undergo, successfully complete and pass the Grade-III and Grade-II Police Wireless Technician (PWT) training course as and when called for to make yourself qualify as SI (WT) of APRO. Hence, after successful completion of your preliminary training courses, you were called to undergo the Grade-III PWT training course at APRO Training School Jalukbari vide S/No. RR/92/2006/52 dtd. 06-07-2006. But, you did not turn up by submitting a petition dtd. 10.07.2006 to consider you to the next batch of trainees. Hence, after successful completion of your preliminary training courses, you were called to undergo the Grade-III PWT training course at APRO Training School Jalukbari vide S/No. RR/92/2006/52 dtd. 06-07-2006. But, you did not turn up by submitting a petition dtd. 10.07.2006 to consider you to the next batch of trainees. You were therefore called in the next batch commencing from 16-07-2007 vide Signal No.RR/92/2007/17 dtd.21.06.2007. This time you submitted petitions dtd. 10.07.2007 and 23.07.2007 for exemption and for leave respectively for which you were directed to report at APRO Training School, Jalukbari to undergo the said training course immediately after your joining from leave vide Signal No.RR/92/2007/102 dtd. 23.08.2007. You resumed duty from leave on 25.9.2007, but you did not turn up for the training course and remained silent. Inspite of the above, you were again called for the said training course vide this office signal No. RR/92/2009/28 dtd. 04.04.2009. But you again submitted a petition for exempting you from the said training course for a personal hearing action taken was intimated vide Do. No.607 dtd.21.07.2009 that after expiry of 1(one) year you would have to undergone the said training course when called for and no further prayer/representation would be entertained in this respect. Accordingly, after expiry of 1(one) year when you were called for the said GD- III PWT training course vide S/No. RR/92/2010/99 dtd. 18.11.2010 and S/No. RR/92/2010/PT/24, dated 28.12.2010, you repeated the same practice of submitting applications and did not turn up to the training course by submitting petitions dtd. 25.11.2010 and 29.12.2010 thereby you have exhibited insubordination and disobeyed the lawful order of the office. That, within the years 2006 to 2011 you were called for the said training course for more than 5(five) times but you did not turn up on various pretext whereas all of you batch mates have already completed the said training course following their turn without any plea. Yet, you were again called to the said training course commencing from 05.11.2012 vide S/No. RR/2012/30 dtd. 28.09.2012 but you did not turn up and again submitted a prayer wherein you requested to call you for the said training course after the month of August, 2013 on the plea of you domestic problem vide your petition dtd. 25.03.2013. With reference to you said petition dtd. 28.09.2012 but you did not turn up and again submitted a prayer wherein you requested to call you for the said training course after the month of August, 2013 on the plea of you domestic problem vide your petition dtd. 25.03.2013. With reference to you said petition dtd. 25.03.2013 and consent given before the authority at APRO HQ during your personal hearing, you were called for the said training course commencing from 03.10.2013 vide S/No. RR /92/2013/ 155 dtd. 30.08.2013. This time you availed 7(seven) days CL w.e.f. 22.09.2013 and extended your leave upto 28.03.2014. After your joining on 29.03.2014 when you were directed to move to the training course vide S/No. RR/92/2010-14/ Part/44 dtd. 04.04.2014 and RR /92/2010-14/ Pat/47 dtd. 11.04.2014 you kept yourself out of reach of the I(T) Karimganj so as to avoid receiving of your release order issued by I(T) Karimganj and subsequently submitted petition for sick leave thereby you have exhibited disobedience to the lawful order of the superior and insubordination”. 7. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply on 10.7.2014 (Annexure-11) clarifying the allegations made out against him and requesting that the charges be discarded and cancelled. Thereafter vide communication dated 15.7.2014 (Annexure-12), the petitioner was informed by the respondent No.4 that his application for trade conversion from Technician Grade to the Operating Grade was rejected since he was yet to qualify for the post of S.I. (WT) Grade-II. 8. The petitioner despite being summoned on various occasions to participate in the departmental proceedings failed to do so except send his reply by speed post on 10.06.2015 along with copies of annexures as evidences to be considered in his defence. Consequently, the enquiry officer on 10.7.2015 (Annexure-19) submitted the enquiry report with a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner were proved. 9. The Superintendent of Police (Communication) HQ-II thereafter on 30.4.2016 (Annexure-20) issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner wherein it was stated that the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it was provisionally decided to award him the penalty of dismissal from service. He was therefore asked to show cause and submit his representation against the proposed action within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the said communication. Therefore, it was provisionally decided to award him the penalty of dismissal from service. He was therefore asked to show cause and submit his representation against the proposed action within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the said communication. The second show cause notice was received by the petitioner on 13.5.2016. On 22.05.2016, the petitioner wrote to the respondent No.7 requesting for 15 days time w.e.f. 22.5.2016 to submit his reply. However, time was not given and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure-24). 10. The admitted position is that the departmental proceedings was held and concluded ex-parte and therefore, Mr. N Nath the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he will not go into the nitty gritty of the facts and will confine his argument only on four basic points or grounds to show that the writ petition is with merit and warrants Court’s interference. 11. The first ground raised by Mr. N Nath is with regard to the findings of the enquiry officer that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent w.e.f. 13.4.2014 to 12.5.2014 without any permission from the competent authority. He submits that as no charge for such unauthorized absence was drawn up by the disciplinary authority in the first show cause notice dated 15.5.2014, the finding of unauthorized absence is only misconceived and unsustainable. 12. Secondly, he submits that respondent authorities could not have initiated the departmental proceeding when his application for relaxation as per Rules and change of trade/grade conversion from Wireless Technician to the Operating trade was pending consideration. In fact, vide communication dated 2.11.2012, the Governor of Assam informed the respondent No. 4 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and again the petitioner on 10.4.2014 himself submitted his representation. Therefore, the respondent authorities could not have initiated disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner on 29.4.2014 or 15.5.2014. The respondent authorities having rejected the petitoner’s representation only on 15.7.2014 clearly demonstrates that the disciplinary proceeding were drawn against the petitioner prior to disposal of his representation. 13. The third ground raised by Mr. N Nath is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is wholly perverse and not sustainable in law in as much as there is no mention about the written statement of defence taken by the writ petitioner in his written reply to the first show cause notice. 13. The third ground raised by Mr. N Nath is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is wholly perverse and not sustainable in law in as much as there is no mention about the written statement of defence taken by the writ petitioner in his written reply to the first show cause notice. Although the petitioner may not have participated in the enquiry proceeding but nevertheless, the enquiry officer was required to consider the petitioner’s clarification before arriving at a conclusion through the enquiry report. He therefore submits that biasness is writ large on the findings of the enquiry officer. 14. The fourth and last ground according to Mr. N Nath is that there is clear violation of Sub Rule (9) of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1964 since the disciplinary authority is required to record its finding by considering the written statements of the defence amongst others. He submits that in the instant case, a copy of the enquiry report was not given to the writ petitioner prior to the issuance of the second show cause notice and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the disciplinary authority before he made up his mind to terminate him from service. In this regard, Mr. N Nath relies relies upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Motiur Rahman vs. United Commercial Bank & Ors. reported in 2003 (1) GLT 196 which further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.D. ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. vs. B Karunakar & Ors. reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 . He submits that the Apex Court in Karunakar (supra) held that the right to a reasonable opportunity will be deemed to be denied if a copy of the enquiry report is not made available to a delinquent officer at a stage where the disciplinary authority is yet to make up its mind as regard the culpability of the charges against the employee or otherwise. Therefore, as a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner only by way of the second show cause notice dated 13.4.2016 after the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and proposed to award the penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner, the petitioner was clearly not afforded a reasonable opportunity. 15. Mr. Therefore, as a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner only by way of the second show cause notice dated 13.4.2016 after the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and proposed to award the penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner, the petitioner was clearly not afforded a reasonable opportunity. 15. Mr. N Nath further relies upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Das vs. Divisional Superintendent S.E. Rly. reported in AIR 1964 Orissa 279 to contend that reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action as contemplated in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution is mainly a question of fact depending on the circumstances to each case and is also justiciable to a limited extent if his subsequent removal is challenged on the ground that this clause has been contravened. Therefore, under such circumstance, he submits that the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service cannot be sustained. 16. Appearing for the State respondents, Ms. M Bhattacharjee, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submits that the appointment of the petitioner as S.I. (WT) is governed with certain terms and conditions including completion of Grade-III and Grade-II training in Police Wireless Technician Grade course for 9 months and 6 months duration respectively. The petitioner despite being given several opportunities willfully and deliberately failed to undergo the said training. Therefore after following due process, the petitioner was found unfit to be retained in the police force and he was therefore rightly dismissed from service. She submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner through his wife was duly forwarded to the respondent No. 4 by the Governor of the State and in compliance thereof, the petitioner was given a personal hearing on 25.3.2013 where he gave a written undertaking that he was prepared to undertake the training after the month of July and August, 2013. As such his representation was duly considered by the respondent authorities. Ms. M Bhattacharjee further submits that the second representation of the petitioner dated 10.4.2014 was received by the department only on 2.5.2014 and by which time it was already decided to hold an enquiry against him. The decision to hold a departmental enquiry against him was taken on 29.4.2014 and soon after, the first show cause notice was issued to him on 15.5.2014. The decision to hold a departmental enquiry against him was taken on 29.4.2014 and soon after, the first show cause notice was issued to him on 15.5.2014. As for his second representation, it was considered and disposed on 15.7.2014. She submits that under such circumstance, the departmental proceeding was initiated much before the petitioner’s representation was received by the respondent authorities and therefore, no wrong was committed. The charges having been proved against the petitioner after having an enquiry, he cannot have any legitimate grievance against the respondents. She submits that the petitioner himself is aware of the fact that such training is clearly stipulated in his appointment letter but the petitioner willfully refused to undergo the same. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances, the writ petition being without any merit should be dismissed. 17. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record including the departmental records produced by the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate. 18. Since, the learned counsel Mr. N Nath has restricted his argument to the four grounds mentioned above, the same may be examined. The learned counsel submits that the enquiry officer by his enquiry report dated 10.7.2015 came to the conclusion that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent w.e.f. 13.4.2014 to 12.5.2014 without permission from the competent authority although such finding was besides the charge leveled against the petitioner. The admitted position is that the first show cause notice dated 15.5.2014 was taken as memorandum of charge against the writ petitioner. Third paragraph of the first show cause notice states that the petitioner availed 7 days casual leave w.e.f. 22.9.2013 and thereafter extended his leave upto 28.3.2014. Upon joining on 29.3.2014, he was directed to move for the training course vide S/No. RR/92/2010-14/ Part-/44 dated 4.4.2014 and RR/92/2010-14/ Part/ 47 dated 11.4.2014 but he kept himself out of reach of the I (T) Karimganj so as to avoid receiving his release order issued by I (T) Karimganj and subsequently submitted petition for sick leave thereby exhibited disobedience to the lawful order of his superior and resulted in insubordination. It is against such charge that the enquiry officer found the petitioner to be unauthorisedly absent w.e.f 13.4.2014 to 12.5.2014. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry officer is misplaced. It is against such charge that the enquiry officer found the petitioner to be unauthorisedly absent w.e.f 13.4.2014 to 12.5.2014. Therefore, it cannot be said that the findings of the enquiry officer is misplaced. It may also be seen that although the petitioner tried to send a sick report when he was released to undergo the training on 13.4.2014, the petitioner was not accorded sick leave but he however, remained unauthorizedly absent from 13.4.2014 to 12.5.2014 as can be seen from the records as well as from the findings of the enquiry officer. 19. The second contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the respondent authorities could not have initiated departmental proceedings when his application for change on trade conversion from technical trade to the operating trade was pending consideration may be considered. Wife of the petitioner submitted a representation on his behalf before the Governor of Assam for change his grade/trade from technical trade to the operating trade. The application was forwarded to the respondent No. 4 by the Governor’s office on 2.11.2012 for consideration. Accordingly, a personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 25.3.2013, whereupon the petitioner agreed in writing to undertake the next batch of the training. Assuming that the request for changing his trade was not considered, but the fact remains that he himself agreed to go for the training in the next batch in writing and therefore, it can only be inferred that he has accepted the rejection of his representation towards change of his trade/grade. The representation of the petitioner submitted by him on 10.4.2014 was also disposed of by the respondent authorities on 15.7.2014 by rejecting the same. Although the representation dated 10.4.2014 was received by the authority concerned on 2.5.2014 while the departmental enquiry was initiated on 29.4.2014, it cannot be considered to be an impediment in drawing such enquiry pending disposal of his representation. The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that had the representation of the petitioner been considered favorably, there would be no occasion to send him for the training cannot be accepted as it is only a hypothetical proposition. The contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that had the representation of the petitioner been considered favorably, there would be no occasion to send him for the training cannot be accepted as it is only a hypothetical proposition. The initial appointment of the petitioner clearly stipulated the required training to be completed by the petitioner in order to be confirmed as S.I. (WT) and therefore the petitioner without completing the mandatory training cannot claim the change of his trade as a matter of right. 20. The third ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the findings of the enquiry officer is wholly perverse since the stand of the petitioner through his written reply was not considered by the enquiry officer may also be looked into . It may be noted that the entire departmental proceedings mainly revolves around the failure on the part of the petitioner to undertake the training in question despite being given several opportunities. His unauthorized absence without his sick leave being accepted and granted also relates to a period when he was released to undergo the said training. Further, the petitioner despite being intimated also failed to participate in the enquiry process for one reason or the other which only demonstrates that he was least interested to present his case besides avoiding the training. In such circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse. 21. Coming to the last ground taken by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the respondent authorities have violated Sub-Rule (9) of the Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Disciplines and Appeals) Rules, 1964 may be examined. Sub-Rule (9) of the Rule 9 provides that the disciplinary authority shall if it is not the enquiring authority consider the record of the enquiry and record its finding of each charge. The order of termination annexed by the writ petitioner in his writ petition as Annexure-24 is only a WT message sent to him since the petitioner was not available in the station. A perusal of the relevant record reveals that the disciplinary authority recorded his findings in detail in order to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. As such, the question of violation of Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Disciplines and Appeals) Rules, 1964 cannot be accepted. 22. A perusal of the relevant record reveals that the disciplinary authority recorded his findings in detail in order to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. As such, the question of violation of Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Disciplines and Appeals) Rules, 1964 cannot be accepted. 22. It can be further seen that although the petitioner was given 10 days time to submit his reply to the second show cause notice dated 30.4.2016 which was admittedly received by him on 13.5.2016, petitioner again vide his letter dated 22.5.2016 requested for extension of 15 days time to submit his reply. The disciplinary authority however upon receipt of the application of the petitioner on 24.5.2016 decided to impose the order of dismissal upon the petitioner vide order dated 30.5.2016. The petitioner on his part after having received the second show cause notice on 13.5.2016 for reasons best known to him only decided to apply for the extension of time vide his communication dated 22.5.2016 ie; only a day before the 10 days time given to him expired. This action demonstrates the attitude of the petitioner which can only be observed as unwarranted coming from a person belonging to a disciplined force. 23. There is no argument upon the proposition of law laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner ie; Matiur Rahman (supra) as well as Bhibuti Bhusan Das (supra). However, the same will have to be understood and applied only if it can be established that prejudice was caused to the petitioner for not being supplied the enquiry report prior to the stage of the second show cause notice. 24. The Apex Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31 has held that even in those cases where procedural requirements have not been complied with, such action ipso facto cannot be held to be illegal, unlawful or void unless it is shown that non-observance had prejudicially affected the person concerned. Applying the ratio to the instant case and on the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the case of Matiur Rahman (supra) as well as Bhibuti Bhusan Das (supra) cannot come to the petitioner’s rescue. Applying the ratio to the instant case and on the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the case of Matiur Rahman (supra) as well as Bhibuti Bhusan Das (supra) cannot come to the petitioner’s rescue. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusal of the entire materials available, I do not find merit in the writ petitions warranting the interference of this Court. 25. Having opined thus, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.