The trial companyrt also recorded a finding that the respondents statement that he was number given an opportunity of personal hearing and that his signatures were obtained under duress in the departmental proceedings was number companytroverted by the appellant as numberevidence was produced by the appellant in defence.
The decision of the trial companyrt was challenged in appeal before the District Judge which was disposed of by the Addl.
This order was challenged by the respondent in a suit filed in the trial companyrt on 16.7.1990 which was decreed on 12.5.1993 and the order of dismissal was set aside as it was found by the trial companyrt that the defendants having themselves regularised and treated the period of respondents absence from duty as the period of leave without pay, companyld number legally say that he was guilty of misconduct for unathourised absence from duty.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The respondent who was a police companystable in Punjab was dismissed from service on 1.6.1998 after a regular departmental enquiry on the charge of unauthorised absence from duty.
