JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 238 of 2018 1. I.A. No.238 of 2018 is an application for condonation of delay of 690 days in filing the appeal. 2. Though substantial time had lapsed in filing the appeal since the judgment was delivered, on consideration of the materials disclosed in the application for condonation of delay, we allow this application and condone the delay in filing the appeal. L.P.A. No. 587 of 2017 3. The appeal of the State is against a decision of the learned First Court quashing the punishment of dismissal awarded to a Police Constable upon conclusion of departmental enquiry. The charge against the concerned Constable (writ petitioner) in substance was misconduct and dereliction of duty. The reason for charging the writ petitioner with these offences was his habitual absence from duty as well as certain other acts of indiscipline. Admitted position is that twice earlier proceedings was brought against the writ petitioner for absenting from his duty. The third time, drawing reference to his earlier absence, charge of misconduct along with certain other charges was made. The learned Single Judge sustained the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority so far as finding of guilt is concerned, but quashed the punishment of dismissal applying the doctrine of proportionality. 4. We find from the order of the Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa passed on 31st December, 2005 that apart from absence, there were certain other allegations against the writ petitioner for which punishment was imposed. The State is not so much aggrieved by the operative portion of the order of the learned First Court by which the matter has been remanded for re-determination on the question of punishment upon quashing of the punishment order imposed by the authority of first instance and confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned First Court has not issued any direction as regards the nature of punishment that may be re-imposed after the matter relating to punishment is re-examined. Primary concern of the State is an observation made by the learned First Court in paragraph-8 of the judgment that for the same charges of remaining absent from duty on two occasions, departmental proceeding No.45/04 was initiated against the writ petitioner. 5. Primary concern of the State is an observation made by the learned First Court in paragraph-8 of the judgment that for the same charges of remaining absent from duty on two occasions, departmental proceeding No.45/04 was initiated against the writ petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State sought to distinguish the reason for bringing the different departmental proceedings and so far as the proceeding in which punishment was imposed, his submission is that there were allegations beyond habitual absenteeism. We have already referred to the order of the Superintendent of Police in this regard. 6. We accept the stand of the State that the charges in the proceedings referred to earlier in this judgment were not founded on the same set of allegations. The learned First Court has also not given specific finding on that count. In such circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with a direction upon the authority of the first instance to re-determine the question of punishment upon giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner within a period of 10 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event the writ petitioner does not appear before the authority on the date fixed for hearing on that question, it shall be open to the authority concerned to proceed ex-parte in the matter. Needless to add, the notice of hearing shall be given to the writ petitioner directly as also upon his learned Advocate who is representing him in this appeal and service upon the learned Advocate shall be deemed to be proper service so far as the proceeding to be undertaken in pursuance of this order is concerned. 7. As we have disposed of the main appeal, the stay petition being I.A. No. 9212 of 2017 shall also stand disposed of.