1976 PLP [C (PLC(CS))

MALIK MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑The appellant, who was a Constable in the Rangers Police and posted at the relevant time at Leepa Karnah, went on two days' leave on 2‑4‑

73. Thereafter he did not present himself on duty till 27‑5‑73 although notices for reporting back to his platoon were issued. In the meantime a case was registered against him under section 307/456, Penal Code resulting in his suspension, arrest and being bailed out. He was, however, allowed to join his duties on 27‑5‑73 but he again absented himself on 28‑6‑73 and seems to have remained absent till he was discharged from service after an ex pate enquiry conducted against him by the Department. Two departmental appeals filed by the appellant before the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police and Inspector‑General of Police we're also dis missed. It is against this background that the present appeal has been lodged with this Tribunal. As the respondent did not appear in spite of service, ex parts proceedings were taken against him.

2. The main point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is based upon the principle of audi alteram partem‑that no man can be con demned unheard. Basing arguments on this principle it is contended that the appellant was neither served with any notice nor heard during the enquiry and that even before the passing of the impugned order of discharge from service he was not served with any notice requiring him to show cause against the findings of the enquiry officer and the intended penalty to be visited upon him.

3. We have given due consideration to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel of the appellant and have also gone through the relevant portions of the record with his help. The record shows that every effort was made to serve notices upon the appellant at his known address before during and after the completion of enquiry. But either the appellant was reported to be absconding even from the Court case or to have left his village. Even after the cancellation of his bail from the Court and his re‑appearance and acquittal in the criminal case, the appellant did not seem to have cared to report back on duty or to find out to what action his Department was taking or had taken against him. It was only after his discharge from service as a result of ex parte enquiry that he seems to have made a belated attempt to file appeals. The service record of the appellant shows that he was in chronic habit of absenting from duty on one pretext or the other. In fact he had earned unflattering remarks and warnings after several enquiries con ducted by the Department against him on this score. Against this back ground could the impugned orders be held illegal simply because the depart mental enquiry was held and the subsequent order of discharge passed ex parte? Our considered view is that in the circumstances of this case, the aid of the principle of audi alteram partem cannot be sought to help the appellant's case. If an employee himself, by his actions, renders the possibility of the service of due notices on him ineffective in spite of reasonable efforts of the Department, then the employee cannot turn round and plead that he was condemned unheard, offending the principles of natural justice. Rule 16.24 (2) of the Police Rules, is quite clear on this point and was applied correctly in this case. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned orders are fully covered by the afore‑cited Police Rules and as such are not assail able, in the circumstances of this case, on the mere ground of non‑service of show‑cause notices or conduct of the enquiry and passing of the order of discharge ex parte. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal.