8. The respondent / writ petitioner was working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. He applied for leave, which was sanctioned from 01.01.2009 to 26.01.2009. He was required to report for duty on 27.01.2009, but, stated to have made a representation seeking extension of leave by fifteen days. This request for extension of leave has not been considered by the fourth appellant and no orders have been passed. Thereafter, two call letters were sent to the respondent on 26.02.2009 and 11.03.2009 directing him to report for duty. However, the respondent did not report for duty. This resulted in the charge memo, dated 03.04.2009, being issued. The charge memo, which was sent by registered post, was returned unserved and had to be served on the respondent through special messenger. Even thereafter, the respondent did not file his reply to the charge memo nor reported for duty. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charge, who issued notices, dated 13.07.2009, 20.07.2009 and 25.07.2009. However, the respondent did not appear. Consequently, he was set ex parte and enquiry was conducted and the charge was held proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, after following due procedure, order of removal from service was passed on 28.09.2009. It is stated that the respondent submitted a representation on 10.08.2009. However, the question of considering the said representation would not arise, because, by then, the enquiry proceedings were concluded and the matter was seized of by the Disciplinary Authority.
