in the year 2009 and at the relevant time, he was posted in District Raipur (C.G.). He further argued that the petitioner was sent for basic training at Chakur, Maharashtra but he did not join there and remained absent from services from 05.07.2009 to 22.08.2009. He also argued that the article of charges was issued on 15.09.2009. The Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed and a departmental inquiry was conducted. After submission of the inquiry report, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. He submitted that an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2010. He further submitted that Writ Petition (S) No.6080/2010 was filed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the said authority to decide the matter afresh. He also submitted that in the second round, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.06.2013. It is further contended by Mr. Pandey that the other constables who remained absent from training were also charge-sheeted and punishment of dismissal was imposed against them. It is also contended that a departmental appeal preferred by those constables was allowed and they were reinstated in service. He referred to the names of those constables i.e. (i) Satish Chandrakar; (ii) Bhagwat Sahu and (iii) Tarun Kumar Netam and stated that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in favour of those persons are also annexed to this petition. He further
