JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for all the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the order dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure-7) by which he was removed from service and also the order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure-10) by which the statutory appeal that he preferred was rejected by the appellate authority. 3. Brief facts of the facts is that the petitioner was appointed as a police constable on 17.04.2002 under the 1st Battalion, Mizoram Armed Police. Upon successfully completing the police basic training, he was confirmed in his appointed rank. Sometime in the year 2013, he was transferred to the 5th Indian Reserved Battalion and he was posted at Marpara Police Station. While he was posted there, he was served with a Memorandum of Charge dated 19.08.2016 asking him to submit a written statement of defense within ten (10) days of receipt of the Memorandum and also to indicate whether he desired to be heard in person. The charge against the petitioner as per Article 1 of the Memorandum was that he was found to be absent from the Battalion Headquarter unauthorizedly w.e.f 06.06.2016 although he was instructed to go the place of posting at Marpara Police Station. As per Article 2, the previous punishment inflicted upon the petitioner for his misconduct and indiscipline were reflected. In the enquiry process, an Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer were appointed and the petitioner participated in the process. After the Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 19.10.2016, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.10.2016 to show cause as to why he should not be awarded a major penalty in view of the findings made in the disciplinary proceedings. Following the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner was removed from service as already stated herein above. 4. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to adduce evidence in his defense. Secondly, his absence from duty was not willful but due to his illness related to his kidneys. Following the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner was removed from service as already stated herein above. 4. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to adduce evidence in his defense. Secondly, his absence from duty was not willful but due to his illness related to his kidneys. The learned counsel also submits that Rule 14 (17) of the CCS CCA Rules have been violated because the petitioner was denied the opportunity to produce his evidence and also not given a copy of the written brief submitted by the Presenting Officer. In support of his submission, he relies upon the case of Amberlight Lyngdoh –vs- State of Meghalay & Others, reported in 2007 (2) GLT 538 and also the decision of the High Court of Calcutta rendered in the case of The Collector of Customs and Others –vs- Md. Habibul Haque, reported in 1973 (1) SLR 321. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was supported by a Medical Certificate indicating that the petitioner was under treatment during the month of June to October, 2016. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the appellate authority. He also submits that the delay in filing the appeal was also clearly explained by the petitioner in his appeal petition dated 15.02.2018 but somehow, his appeal came to be rejected on the ground of delay. Under the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority may be interfered with by this Court and that the petitioner may be reinstated into service. 6. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate on the other hand submits that the orders passed by the authorities concerned does not call for the interference by this Hon’ble Court. She submits that although the petitioner contends that no opportunity was given to him to adduce evidence, the same is not correct inasmuch as, the petitioner was given due opportunities during the entire departmental proceedings. Moreover, it is not even the case of the petitioner as per his pleading that opportunity was not given to him to adduce evidence. The learned Govt. Moreover, it is not even the case of the petitioner as per his pleading that opportunity was not given to him to adduce evidence. The learned Govt. Advocate further submits that the contention of the petitioner that his absence was not willful is not correct inasmuch as, from his own statements which is reflected in the Enquiry Report, the petitioner despite being instructed to proceed to Marpara and the bus ticket purchased for him by the Post Commander, he failed to board the bus. Later, by means of Sumo vehicle, he went up till West Phaileng but again he returned back to Sairang, which only goes to show that his absence from duty was willful. She further submits that the Post Commander waited for him for at least ten (10) days and it was only on 15.06.2016 that he submitted a report about the absence of the petitioner. The learned Govt. Advocate also submits that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter/absentee. She submits that Article of the Memorandum of Charge reflects the character and nature of the petitioner. He was punished by giving him minor penalties on various occasions and therefore after following due process, the authorities found him not fit to be retained in service and therefore, removed him from service. 7. Upon hearing the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner on 15.02.2018 (Annexure-8) was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned Order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure-10). A perusal of the said order goes to show that by applying the provision of Rule 1050 (2) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, which provides that appeal should be preferred within a period of two (2) months, the appeal of the petitioner came to be rejected. In other words, the appeal was rejected on technical ground. It may be seen that as per the said Rule, if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal in time, the appeal can be rejected. However, such consideration is also not discernible in the impugned order dated 19.02.2018. In other words, the appeal was rejected on technical ground. It may be seen that as per the said Rule, if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal in time, the appeal can be rejected. However, such consideration is also not discernible in the impugned order dated 19.02.2018. Therefore, I am of the considered view that instead of embarking upon the merits of the case, it would serve the ends of justice if the Appellate Authority is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner by disposing of his appeal petition on merits. 8. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 4 to reconsider the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner on 15.02.2018 on merits and in consultation with all the relevant materials available in the records of the departmental proceeding. The Appellate Authority shall also afford the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing before coming to a decision/conclusion. The Appellate Authority is directed to carry out the exercise as directed herein above within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also submit a copy of this writ petition before the Appellate Authority for his consideration. Order to be passed by the Appellate Authority shall be communicated to the petitioner. No cost.