JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral) The petitioner, before this Court, has questioned the validity of the orders dated 19th June, 1995, passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby, the services of the petitioner as Constable with the respondents was dismissed, while exercising powers under Rule 14 (1) read with Appendix I of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter to be called as 1991 Rules). The petitioner, being aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 19th June, 1995, had preferred a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court, being Writ Petition No. 23381 of 1995. The said Writ Petition, on creation of the State of Uttarakhand, stood transferred to the Uttarakhand High Court, under Section 35 of the Re-organization Act, 2000, and was re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 6727 of 2001. The Writ Petition was taken up and was dismissed by this Court on 8th April, 2008, directing the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy of Appeal under Rule 20 available to him under the Rules of 1991. Being aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has preferred a Special Appeal in the year 2008 and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 09.09.2008. It was, thereafter, that the petitioner has preferred an Appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 before the Appellate Authority, i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police (PAC), Haridwar. The same was too dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 16th January, 2009. Being aggrieved against the said order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has preferred a Revision under Rule 13 of Rules of 1991, before the Inspector General of Police (PAC), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The same was also dismissed by the order dated 26.06.2009. 2. Being aggrieved against the three orders, the petitioner has approached the Public Services Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition No. 39/N.B. of 2009 and same has been dismissed by the Public Services Tribunal by its judgment dated 28th July, 2011. It is against these consecutive orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the following reliefs :- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 19-06-1995, 16-01-2009, 26-06-2009 and 28-07-2011 (Annexure Nos. It is against these consecutive orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the following reliefs :- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the orders dated 19-06-1995, 16-01-2009, 26-06-2009 and 28-07-2011 (Annexure Nos. 1, 6, 7 & 8 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits." 3. The petitioner's contention is that after going through the selection process, he was appointed with the respondents as Constable as back as on 26.03.1991 and was allotted constable No. 50829 and while he was in service, he has been dismissed from the services on the ground that he had remained in an unauthorized absence for a period of 54 days without any sanctioned leave or any prior intimation to the Authorities, for a period commencing from 03.06.1994 to 26.07.1994. Based on the aforesaid allegations, he was issued with the chargesheet dated 29th July, 1994. In the chargesheet, the case as set out was that the petitioner had proceeded on sanctioned leave from 29.05.1994 for a period of five days. The petitioner was suppose to return back and report on duty on 03.06.1994 but he overstayed without intimation. The petitioner has not returned back on the scheduled date and remained absent unauthorizedly till 26.07.1994. Charge leveled against the petitioner was that he has remained in an unauthorized absence from 3rd June, 2994 till 26th July, 1994, i.e. for almost 54 days without information to the authorities concerned. Charge as framed by the respondent is quoted hereunder :- ßÞ,pß ny 40oha okfguh] ih,lh] gfj}kjA vkidks ,rn~}kjk fuEukuqlkj vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gS%& Þo"kZ 1994 esa tc vki 40oha okfguh] ih,lh] gfj}kj ls Þ,pß ny esa fu;qDr Fks rc fnukad 29-5-94 ls 5 fnol LohÑr vkdfLed vodk'k ij x;s FksA ckn lekIr vodk'k vkidks fnukad 3-6-94 dks iwoZ nksigj fM;wVh ij vkuk Fkk] ysfdu vki fu/kkZfjr le; ij u vkdj fnukad 26-7-94 dks jñuñ 11 le; 9 cts 53 fnol] 9 ?kaVk ¼54 fnu½ vuqifLFkr gksdj fM;wVh ij vk;sAß 4. In the chargesheet, as referred thereto, there were as many as six witnesses who were supposed to be examined during the course of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The names and the designations of the witnesses were contained in the chargesheet itself. In the chargesheet, as referred thereto, there were as many as six witnesses who were supposed to be examined during the course of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. The names and the designations of the witnesses were contained in the chargesheet itself. The case of the petitioner is that on receipt of the chargesheet, he had submitted his reply before the Inquiry Officer on 2nd August, 1994, in which, he had denied the allegations as leveled against him in the chargesheet on the premise that he had proceed on a sanctioned five days leave on 29th May, 1994 and was supposed to return back in the forenoon of 3rd June, 1994, but due to untoward reasons he could not report back immediately after expiry of sanctioned leave. He submitted that he does not want to contest the disciplinary proceedings and prayed for forgiveness. 5. In response to the chargesheet dated 29.07.1994 submitted against the petitioner, the petitioner inter alia pleaded as under in his reply dated 02.08.1994: (i) He suffered from diarrhea/cholera and undertook his treatment at Primary Health Centre Vijaypur. In support of his contention, he places reliance on medical certificate issued on 06.06.1994. (ii) His reply was to the effect that after recovering from said ailment while he was proceeding to join his duties on 15th June, 1994, and when he was moving towards the railway station to catch the train, a jeep colluded against his scooter, on which, he was travelling. He fell down and injured his right leg which got fractured. This accident has completely hampered his mobility. (iii) Petitioner has a specific case in defence that as a consequence of the injuries sustained by him, he got himself hospitalized in the Government Hospital Gopi Ganj, Varanasi and on recovering from the ailment, he joined the services on 26th July, 1994. (iv) Further, in his reply to the charges, he submitted that after recovering from the ailment, he had obtained medical certificate and the information pertaining to the absence along with medical certificates was submitted to the Authorities by telegram as well as by registered post dated 08.06.1994 and 25.06.1994 respectively. (v) He is a poor person and has his domestic responsibilities, hence he prayed for forgiveness and would not be contesting disciplinary proceedings and assured that this mistake will not be repeated in future. 6. (v) He is a poor person and has his domestic responsibilities, hence he prayed for forgiveness and would not be contesting disciplinary proceedings and assured that this mistake will not be repeated in future. 6. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner in support of his contention to the pleadings raised in defence to the chargesheet has annexed three medical certificates which are said to have been issued on 23rd July, 1994, 25th June, 1994 and 6th June, 1994.Apparently, on reading of these medical certificates, it do not support the contentions raised by the petitioner in para 5 of the writ petition. Petitioner in his reply to the chargesheet had never pleaded that he was ever hospitalized, this fact is incorrect. Admittedly, in para 5 to the writ petition, which reads as under: “That the petitioner was seriously injured and need a immediate medical aid was required due to that situation he was hospitalized in G.P.H.C. Gopiganj, Varanasi and P.H.C. Vijaypur, District Mirzapr, then the petitioner sent an application along with medical certificates to Commandant, 40th Battalion, P.A.C., Haridwar for leave." He pleaded that he was hospitalized and this fact is contrary to the evidence on record, and the case pleaded by the petitioner in his reply to the chargesheet. The reason being the fact of hospitalization is not borne out either from the pleadings or from the so called evidence of treatment on which the petitioner has placed reliance. The first certificate dated 23.07.1994 simply shows that it was only a fitness certificate holding thereof that the petitioner has recovered from his ailment and is in a position to resume his duties w.e.f. 25.07.1994. The second certificate which is dated 25th June, 1994, is only a certificate to the effect that on 15th June, 1994, petitioner suffered injury in his right side knee and he was advised bed rest for one month. This certificate too do not show that petitioner suffered a fracture and was hospitalized ever. The third certificate, being that of 6th June, 1994, in fact, shows that he was suffering from diarrhea, yet again is not a document containing proof of hospitalization or fracture. Even, it is not reflected from the reply dated 02.08.1994 to the chargesheet dated 27.07.1994 that the petitioner had ever supplied these documents during disciplinary proceedings in support of his contention before the Inquiry Officer. 7. Even, it is not reflected from the reply dated 02.08.1994 to the chargesheet dated 27.07.1994 that the petitioner had ever supplied these documents during disciplinary proceedings in support of his contention before the Inquiry Officer. 7. On scrutiny of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the chargesheet on 2nd August, 1994, it reveals that he has expressly taken a contradictory stand with regard to the reason of absence and inability to join the duties within the prescribed time, i.e. by 3rd June, 1994. In the reply thus submitted, what is significant is that he alleges to have suffered a knee injury and was unable to walk and thus was confined to stay at home. In support of his contention, he in reply had also places reliance to the certificate issued by the Medical Officer on 25th July, 1994. In the reply, he had stated that he has given information to the Authorities through telegram and through registered post, about the reasons of his ailment and his inability to join into the services. It seems that and rather reflected from his stand taken in defence, it had never been his case in the reply to chargesheet that he was rendered incapacitated to join the services on account of the ailment of the brother who is said to have become insane. 8. The departmental proceedings were drawn against the petitioner and ultimately it culminated by submission of the inquiry report dated 25.05.1995, in which, the allegation was said to have been proved against petitioner. From the service records, it has been further reflected that present incident was not an isolated incident of indiscipline/misconduct, while working with disciplined forces, when the petitioner has derelicted in performing his duties seriously because there had been many other incidents prior in time, in which, almost identical set of allegations were leveled against the petitioner and were established against him in the inquiry and for which he was punished. For example, some of them being narrated as under : 1. That on various occasions, he has been awarded minor penalty twice for going on leave and being absent and not returning within the time-schedule. 2. He was given a bad character entry in 1992 for having been caught in cheating in RTC examination. 3. For example, some of them being narrated as under : 1. That on various occasions, he has been awarded minor penalty twice for going on leave and being absent and not returning within the time-schedule. 2. He was given a bad character entry in 1992 for having been caught in cheating in RTC examination. 3. On 29th May, 1993, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of demotion to the minimum of payscale after holding the departmental proceedings, in which, it was found that he remained absent from duties and has not returned after availing emergency leave for 15 days and, thus, absented himself for 124 days. 4. There have been censure entries against the petitioner for absence without permission in the year 1993. This censure entry was for absence without permission during the suspension period. 5. There was another departmental proceedings which was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1994 for going on 30 days earned leave on 6th January, 1994 and not returning on the scheduled time and returning on his freewill only on 11th April, 1994, thereby, remaining absent for 35 days. On conclusion of the inquiry, he was found guilty and he was penalized with the demotion to the minimum of the pay-scale by the order dated 31st May, 1994. Hence, it is case of the respondents that the petitioner is in habit of absenting himself. 6. It is not only the above incidents which are reflected from the service record but rather to the contrary it further shows that the petitioner after proceedings on an unauthorized leave of 54 days, when he joined on 26th July, 1994, he was placed under suspension on 16.06.1994. He had during the suspension period was permitted to avail 10 days leave w.e.f. 18th August, 1994, but, has returned back only on 31st August, 1994, i.e. beyond the period of 3 days and 8 hrs. Yet again, petitioner proceeded for 8 days leave on 19th September, 1994 and he returned back on 21st September, 1994, after an overstay of 3 days and 24 hrs. 7. What is reflected from the service record and as is apparent that in the Roll Call, which was conducted in the night of 24th September, 1994, the petitioner was found remained absent and, thereafter, he only returned on 27th September, 1994, i.e. after 2 days and 9 hrs. 7. What is reflected from the service record and as is apparent that in the Roll Call, which was conducted in the night of 24th September, 1994, the petitioner was found remained absent and, thereafter, he only returned on 27th September, 1994, i.e. after 2 days and 9 hrs. and, once again, lastly, he remained absent in the Roll Call on 11th October, 1994 and returned on 21st October, 1994, i.e. after availing unauthorized leave of 10 days and 3 hrs. 9. What is significant is that whatever the defence petitioner has taken in reply to the chargesheet, surprisingly, in the reply of 15th July, 1995, as submitted by the petitioner, he has not made even a slightest reference that his brother had fallen mentally sick, which contributed for rendering him incapacitated to join back his duties. Meaning thereby, at the first instance of defence given in the reply dated 2nd August, 1994 to the show cause dated 27th May, 1995, no such stand has been taken by the petitioner. After concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the Inquiry Officer passed an order recommending the punishment of dismissal. Consequently, the impugned order of dismissal dated 19th June, 1995 has been passed invoking Rule 14 (1) (A) of the Rules of 1991. 10. The Inquiry Officer has recorded the findings that during the course of departmental proceedings, the petitioner was called upon to participate in the proceedings on the scheduled dates, i.e. 5th January, 1995 so as to enable him to participate in the proceedings while recording of the statement of the witnesses and to cross examine the witnesses produced by the respondent authorities. It is further come on record that since the petitioner was continuously absent from 02.11.1994, during the suspension period also, the notices calling upon him to participate in the proceedings was sent vide letter No. 5/94 dated 15.12.1994, on his residential address, the service of notice for 05.01.1995, was duly served on him by special messenger constable 50692 Mool Chand Chaudhary. Since the petitioner was not available at his residence, notice was served on his elder brother on 20.12.1994. But despite service of notice, petitioner choose not to participate in the enquiry fixed for 05.01.1994. Hence, next date of disciplinary proceedings was fixed on 12.01.1994. Since the petitioner was not available at his residence, notice was served on his elder brother on 20.12.1994. But despite service of notice, petitioner choose not to participate in the enquiry fixed for 05.01.1994. Hence, next date of disciplinary proceedings was fixed on 12.01.1994. It is specific case of the respondents that even intimation of the date fixed for 12.01.1994 was send to the petitioner vide letter 5-94 dated 05.01.1995 through special messenger constable No. 50051 Mr. Rajendra Singh, as petitioner was not available at his residence notice was served on his brother Daya Shankar Pandey. It is specific finding recorded that the said letter was served on the petitioner, but, he has chosen not to contest the proceedings or file the reply, record his statement or cross examine the departmental witness in the proceedings held on 12.01.1995 and 28.04.1995. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts, the findings of the enquiry report dated 25.05.1995, on 19.06.1995 the dismissal order was passed against the petitioner, against which, he preferred an appeal which was considered by the Appellate Authority and dismissed the appeal on 16.01.2009. 12. At this stage, before venturing into the propriety of the Appellate Authority, it is relevant to consider that in the Appeal preferred by the petitioner on 2nd August, 1994 before the Appellate Authority. In the grounds of Appeal, he has submitted that he has been put under suspension by the Commandant on 16.06.1994, for his absence of 54 days'. He contended that order is bad as it was the Inquiry Officer, Mr. Choora Singh who in the conclusion drawn in the inquiry report dated 25th May, 1995, since has recommended the punishment of dismissal, the order is bad. His case before the Appellate Authority was also to the effect that when he submitted reply on 0.08.1994, thereby, he has stated and rather it would be inferred that the charges were admitted by him when he pleads that “I don't want to contest this departmental proceedings and I seek pardon". The Appellate Authority after considering the facts that the petitioner himself has pleaded forgiveness, it would amount to that he admits the guilt of being voluntarily absent on number of occasions, resulting into passing of the impugned order. The Appellate Authority after considering the facts that the petitioner himself has pleaded forgiveness, it would amount to that he admits the guilt of being voluntarily absent on number of occasions, resulting into passing of the impugned order. The Appellate Authority considered the dispute in its entirety and after considering evidence brought on record, held that the evidence do not prove the fact that there chanced any accident as there was no FIR lodged nor the medical certificate filed by the petitioner himself support the fact that leg of the petitioner was fractured. Thus it was found that if at the most petitioner could be said to have suffered, it could be from cholera, which under no circumstances hamper his mobility. The Appellate authority and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was challenged by the petitioner in the Revision and the same was confirmed in the Revision preferred by the petitioner by the order dated 26th June, 2009. 13. The Revisional Authority, while considering the Revision of the petitioner, apart from dealing with the fact narrated therein, and the ground for absence with regard to his illness of having been hospitalized for the treatment for the fracture, which he alleges to have suffered from, the Revisional Authority considered the entire document on records and has recorded a finding to the effect that the Inquiry Officer for soliciting the participation of the petitioner had sent several notices by special messenger informing him to participate in the departmental proceedings, all notices were served at his residence, but, still the petitioner has chosen not to participate in the proceedings. In the absence of the petitioner appearing for recording his statement and cross examination of the witnesses of the prosecution, once again, the charges would be deemed to be proved and an information was sent to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not appear, consequently, as per the finding recorded by the Revisional Authority, the Inquiry Officer proceeded and recorded the statements of the witnesses and gave his conclusion in his report submitted on 25th May, 1995. The Revisional Authority, considering the explanation given by the petitioner, pertaining to his ailment, which he submitted that he was suffering from the fracture and on considering the evidence on record, have recorded the findings to the effect that as per the certificate filed in support of his contention that the Medical Officer has advised him one month's rest due to injury in the knee. But, there is nothing on record to show that any FIR was lodged by the petitioner about the said incident nor there is any evidence on record to show that he was an in-patient under treatment in the Primary Health Centre, Vijaypur. The medical certificate rather shows that he was outdoor-patient and the fact of fracture having been suffered by him is also not established. The matter was carried to the Public Service Tribunal at the behest of the petitioner. The Public Service Tribunal, too, by the judgment dated 28th July, 2011, confirmed the order of dismissal and dismissed the Claim Petition. 14. Primarily, the case of the petitioner before this Court for questioning the orders is from the following view points: 1. He was not provided an adequate opportunity to contest the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. 2. He submits that the Inquiry Officer could not have recommended the punishment. 3. He submits that looking to the gravity of the allegation against him, the punishment imposed is too excessive and disproportionate. 15. Dealing with the first issue, we are of the view that looking to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as the Revisional Authority, it is apparent that the petitioner himself has voluntarily chosen not to participate in the proceedings despite of the fact that several notices of the proceedings was duly served upon him. The aforesaid contention also stands fortified from the reply extended by the petitioner to the chargesheet on 2nd August, 1994, wherein, he has prayed for forgiveness and has submitted that he does not want to contest the departmental proceedings, which itself showed his intention not to face departmental proceedings, hence now he cannot be permitted to have a somersault defence at the writ stage when there is no scope of merit review permissible. This version, in itself, leads to a conclusion that the petitioner admits the guilt and has prayed for forgiveness and, more particularly, when he himself says that he does not want to contest the proceedings and does not appear before the Inquiry Officer to record his statement or to cross examine the witness of the prosecution, the petitioner cannot be permitted to have a plea that he was not provided with an effective opportunity of hearing when he has acquainced the same. 16. This ground is also not available to the petitioner from the view point that the impugned orders have not been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that no effective opportunity was granted to the petitioner, as no such ground has been taken in the Writ Petition, and also otherwise too the findings recorded reveals to the contrary. This issue also is diluted owing to the other stand which was taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and the findings to this effect has been recorded, wherein, the petitioner has submitted that “I don't want to contest this departmental proceedings, I seek pardon". This, in itself, shows that he didn't had any inclination to contest the proceedings rather while admitting guilt had prayed for forgiveness. This contention of the petitioner that he was not given an adequate opportunity is belied from the fact that under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1991, it deals with situation of holding of the proceedings in absentia. Rule 16 (1) is quoted hereunder : “Proceedings in absentia – (1) Departmental proceedings against delinquent police officers may be taken in absentia by the authorities competent to take departmental proceedings if, the police officer, against whom departmental proceedings are pending or against whom it is proposed to start such proceedings or to whom it is impossible for the inquiry officer to contact, deliberately absents himself from the place of his posting or from the proceedings when in progress." 17. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 provides that before proceedings with the departmental proceedings in absentia, the Authority has to record a finding that in spite of due service and, after taking all reasonable steps and having contacted the Police Officer, failed to ensure his appearance, they can proceed in absentia. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 provides that before proceedings with the departmental proceedings in absentia, the Authority has to record a finding that in spite of due service and, after taking all reasonable steps and having contacted the Police Officer, failed to ensure his appearance, they can proceed in absentia. This aspect stood satisfied in view of the findings concurrently recorded by all the authorities that notices were sent on various occasions, but despite service, petitioner did not participate in the proceedings. In the instant case, the explanation given to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 would be relevant as already mentioned above. Su-rule (2) of Rule 16 reads as under : “(2) Before taking departmental proceedings in absentia, the concerned authority shall record in writing that inspite of all reasonable steps having been taken to contact the police officer it has not been possible to serve the charge on him and obtain his explanation or to secure his personal presence." Despite of number of steps taken for serving the petitioner, and the notice having been served upon him, he has voluntarily chosen not to participate in the inquiry, hence, this ground is not tenable that there had been violation of principle of natural justice. 18. The second argument as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner though not taken at any stage of the proceedings, including, the proceedings before the Public Service Tribunal to the effect that the Inquiry Officer could not have recommended the nature of punishment to be imposed on the petitioner on establishment of the charge while concluding enquiry. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Member of the Disciplinary Forces. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings are governed and conducted under the Rules of 1991, under which the action has been taken against the petitioner for the charges leveled against him. The procedure for dismissal and removal is contemplated under Rule (8) of Rules of 1991, which provides that prior to passing of the order of dismissal, a proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings should be held. The proceedings for removal, under which the action has been taken against the petitioner, is under Rule 14 (1), which reads as under :- “14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings. The proceedings for removal, under which the action has been taken against the petitioner, is under Rule 14 (1), which reads as under :- “14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings. – (1) Subject to the provisions contained in these Rules, the departmental proceedings in the cases referred to in sub-rule (1) of the Rule 5 against the police officers may be conducted accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix I." By virtue of Rule 14 (1), the provisions of Appendix I has been made applicable. Appendix I is quoted hereunder :- “Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the enquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The ground on which itis proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form 1 appended to these Rules which shall be communicated 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. He shall be required within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charge police officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish : provided that the Inquiry Officer may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceeding make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer." On reading of Appendix I, it is absolutely made clear that it is open for the Inquiry Officer to make his own recommendations regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Police Officer. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceeding make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer." On reading of Appendix I, it is absolutely made clear that it is open for the Inquiry Officer to make his own recommendations regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Police Officer. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there could not have been recommendation of the punishment by the Inquiry Officer is untenable and contradictory to the Rules of 1991 read with Appendix I. Hence, we are unable to accept this argument. 19. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken shelter to the argument that the quantum of punishment is excessive, looking to the gravity of the charge being absent for 54 days was too excessive and a lenient view ought to have been taken by the Authority before passing the order of punishment. In this regard, we feel that in the Discipline Force absence without prior intimation and that too on a concocted and frivolous non existing ground, cannot be permitted to perpetuate, more particularly, when the same was not endeavoured to be established by the petitioner by participation in the proceedings. 20. In view of the findings which has been recorded in the inquiry report dated 25th May, 1995, particularly with regards to the earlier set of established mis-conduct and consequential punishment, it shows that this is not an isolated incident where the petitioner has derelicted in performance of his duties attached to his office. There have been innumerable incidents of misconduct, where the petitioner after taking leaves had overstayed or has voluntarily absented himself from the duties for which he was also punished on number of occasions. There have been innumerable incidents of misconduct, where the petitioner after taking leaves had overstayed or has voluntarily absented himself from the duties for which he was also punished on number of occasions. Looking to the past conduct of the petitioner and the habit of being absent and even not caring to diligently participate in the proceedings despite service of notice, we feel that since the petitioner himself has not come up with clean hands in taking his defence before the Inquiry Officer by putting a false defence of hospitalization and fracture and further the evidence relied, failed to establish the reasons for absence, authentically being the fracture said to have been suffered by the petitioner, we find that the orders as passed by the Authorities and the Tribunal do not suffer from any apparent error or mistake which calls for interference by this Court. Hence we see no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. 21. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.