JUDGMENT : Order No. 842 of 2002 dated 11.06.2002 issued by respondent No.6 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 28.09.2001 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Facts, giving rise to the filing of the instant petition briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 16.08.1995. He, after availing of leave, failed to join his duty and, therefore, reported absent w.e.f. 28.09.2001 unauthorisedly from District Police Line, Border, Jammu. Accordingly, a report to this effect was entered vide D.D. No. 13 dated 28.09.2001 at 11.30 hours. The petitioner claims that he had fallen sick and had applied to the respondents for extension of leave. He also claims that after recovering from illness, he approached the respondents to join the Unit, but was not allowed to do so by the respondents and later on, he came to know that respondent No.6 vide order impugned has removed him from the services of the Police w.e.f. 28.09.2001. 3. The petitioner gives 25th of August 2005 as the date when he approached the respondents to join his duty after he fully recovered from his illness. With regard to the period w.e.f. 28.09.2001 till 25th August 2005, the petitioner claims that he was suffering from LBA with sciatica Right Lower limb and was under medical treatment. He assails his order of termination, primarily, on the ground that his services were terminated in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, in that, he was never served with any notice of show cause nor was he provided any opportunity to explain his absence. He also complains that the order impugned was passed without holding a proper departmental enquiry as envisaged under Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules. 4. Per contra, the respondents in their reply affidavit have taken a stand that immediately on finding that the petitioner had absented himself from the DPL Border Jammu on 28.09.2001, a report in this regard was entered in the Daily Dairy on 28.09.2001. A wireless message was also flashed to the petitioner through SHO, Police Station, Domana to direct him to resume his duty. This was done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DAR, DPL Border Jammu vide his signal dated 7th September 2001. The petitioner did not respond. A show cause notice for resumption of duty was also issued to the petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2002. This was done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DAR, DPL Border Jammu vide his signal dated 7th September 2001. The petitioner did not respond. A show cause notice for resumption of duty was also issued to the petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2002. The notice was claimed to have been served upon the petitioner and delivered to him through a special messenger against a proper receipt executed by the petitioner on 10.01.2002. Still the petitioner did not resume his duty. 5. Faced with the non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DAR, DPL Border was directed to hold a departmental enquiry vide order dated 31.01.2002. The Enquiry Officer prepared the summary of allegations vide order dated 09.02.2002. The summary of allegations was followed by a show cause notice. Thereafter several messages and notices were sent to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner did not cooperate and despite service, did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. It is, thus, claimed that the petitioner himself chose not to contest the enquiry proceedings and was accordingly, proceeded ex-parte by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the competent authority with the recommendation that the petitioner be discharged from the service. Accordingly, vide order impugned, the competent authority terminated the services of the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the fate of this case turns upon the determination of a disputed question of fact. The disputed question of fact is; whether the petitioner was afforded a requisite opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. No less important is the question for determination that in the given facts and circumstances, where the petitioner refused to cooperate in the enquiry and did not respond to the notices issued by the Enquiry Officer from time to time, the enquiry proceedings and the consequent order of penalty is vitiated for not complying with the Principles of Natural Justice as also for not following the procedure laid down in the Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules. 7. This Court, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, may not be competent to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. 7. This Court, in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, may not be competent to adjudicate disputed questions of fact. The determination of disputed questions of fact is a subject matter of trial where the parties are permitted to lead evidence in support of their assertion and denial. In the writ jurisdiction, the scope of enquiry into disputed questions of fact is very limited and a view is required to be formed on the basis of material available on record in the shape of pleadings supported by affidavit and the admitted documentary evidence. It is for this reason the respondents were directed to produce the record. Having waited for more than two weeks, the respondents have not made the record of enquiry available to this Court. Despite the aforesaid handicap created by the irresponsible attitude of the respondents, I have ventured to determine the issue on the basis of available material on record. 8. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he remained unauthorisedly absent w.e.f. 28.09.2001 to 25.08.2005 when he claims to have approached the respondents to join his duty. Mind it, the petitioner is a Constable serving in the Belt force i.e. J&K Police which requires utmost discipline. Remaining unauthorisedly absent for a period of almost four years is a serious matter and cannot be readily condoned, nor such delinquent police official can be permitted to take shelter to the technicalities of law. The claim of the petitioner that he approached the respondents on 25.08.2005 for joining his duty after remaining absent for four years due to illness is not supported by any documentary evidence. The petitioner has placed on record two certificates issued by the Medical Officer of CHC, R.S. Pura, one on 20th July 2003 and other on 18th August 2005. A bare look at these Medical certificates would present an interesting picture. Both the certificates appear to have been written by the same person in same hand writing and even using the same pen, though purportedly issued on two different dates in the year 2003 and 2005 respectively. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted these certificates to the respondents. Even the disease mentioned in these certificates is not such as would prevent a person for getting recovered in four years. The petitioner does not claim to have remained hospitalized for any period during his illness. Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted these certificates to the respondents. Even the disease mentioned in these certificates is not such as would prevent a person for getting recovered in four years. The petitioner does not claim to have remained hospitalized for any period during his illness. It is, thus, obvious that these two certificates were procured by the petitioner to justify his absence. 9. The respondents have placed on record sufficient material to indicate that right from day one i.e. 28.09.2001 when the petitioner absented from duty, he was intimated and requested to resume his duty. Several signals have been passed on to the petitioner through SHO concerned. Notice was also served upon him through a special messenger who served the charge- sheet upon the petitioner in the presence of two witnesses. The petitioner has put his signatures as an acknowledgement of having received the charge-sheet. In these circumstances, when the petitioner refused to cooperate in the enquiry and respond to the notices issued to him from time to time, it was not practicable, rather possible to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and follow the procedure laid down in Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules. Even in the writ petition, the petitioner has not able to explain his absence of four years by placing on record any cogent material. The material placed on record in the shape of two medical certificates only aggravates the conduct of the petitioner. The medical certificates, relied upon by the petitioner, are completely afterthought, managed and generated to justify his unauthorized absence of more than four years. 10. In such situation, I am of the considered view that it was not possible to hold the enquiry strictly in terms of the procedure laid down under Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, however, the respondents did everything that was required under rules before passing the impugned order. In the view I have taken herein, I am supported by a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohd Iqbal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors, 2004 (3) JKJ 234 . In the aforesaid case, this Court was confronted with a similar situation and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court, in paragraph 7 of the Judgment (supra) held as under: “7. In the aforesaid case, this Court was confronted with a similar situation and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court, in paragraph 7 of the Judgment (supra) held as under: “7. It is admitted case of the parties that no enquiry as contemplated under rule 359 of the J&K Police Rule was held against the petitioner. In such a situation the question which arises for consideration is whether the order terminating the services of the petitioner without following the procedure as laid down under rule 359 is bad in law? In my considered view the holding of enquiry as envisaged under Section 126 of the Constitution of J&K and Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules may be necessary before the services of an employee are terminated for absence without leave or absence after leave, but this principle of law has no universal application. In cases where the facts disclose that the employee had absconded or where it is impossible to communicate with him, then the order in my view does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 the Supreme court said that since the audi alteram partem rule is intended to inject justice into the law, it cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice, or to make the law lifeless, absurd stultifying, self defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the situation. Bhagwati, J (as his lordship then was) in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) said, "What opportunity may be regarded as reasonable would necessarily depend on the practical necessities of the situation. It may be a sophisticated full fledged hearing or it may be hearing which is very brief and minimal; it may be a hearing prior to the decision or it may even be post decisional remedial hearing. The audi alteram partem rule is sufficiently flexible to permit modifications and variations to suit the exigencies of myriad kinds of situations which may arise". The Supreme Court thus has settled that audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and that it may suffer situational modifications”. 11. The observations in paragraph 9 of the Judgment (supra) are also noteworthy and the same are reproduced hereunder: “9. The Supreme Court thus has settled that audi alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and that it may suffer situational modifications”. 11. The observations in paragraph 9 of the Judgment (supra) are also noteworthy and the same are reproduced hereunder: “9. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is liable to be quashed because while imposing penalty of removal from service, the punishing authority did not take into consideration that the petitioner had already put in service of eighteen years. He contended that the punishing authority has the discretion to impose minor as well as major penalty and it is always not necessary to impose the punishment of removal or dismissal from service simply because charge of misconduct is proved against the delinquent. He further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case lesser punishment ought to have been awarded to the petitioner”. 12. The case in hand also presents a similar situation and, therefore, I have no doubt in mind that it was a case where it was impracticable, if not impossible, to communicate with the petitioner. The petitioner had unauthrisedly absented himself from police duty and did not bother to respond to the notices issued by the respondents for resumption of his duty. He chose not to participate in the enquiry and, therefore, cannot be heard to say that no enquiry in terms of Rule 359 of Police Rules was held by the respondents or that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself. It is the case of the petitioner himself that for the first time he reported for duty in the year 2005 i.e. more than four years after having absented from duty. The judgments in the case of Kuma Bano vs. State and ors, 2017 (3) JKJ 474 (HC) as also in the case of Amarjit Kour vs. State and ors, decided on 27.07.2018, relied upon by the petitioner are clearly distinguishable and in any case the Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Mohammad Iqbal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and ors., 2004 (3) JKJ 234 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, was not brought to the notice of the subsequent Single Benches of this Court, which rendered the judgments in the case of Kuma Bano as also in the case of Amarjit Kour (supra). 13. 13. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.