while placing reliance on the said judgment, which was subsequently followed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.898 of 1995, vide judgment, dated 01.4.1997, opined that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under Regulation-28(3) of the Regulations was bad. The learned single Judge while holding that the appellants are entitled to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, nevertheless granted part relief to the respondent on his agreeing for forfeiture of back wages during the period of his absence, i.e., from 23.8.2001 to 13.8.2003. The learned single Judge has termed the facts of the case as peculiar. But in our view, they are very familiar to this Court. Instances galore where many employees abscond from duties and report back after a few years by coming out with distorted and fabricated versions. It is to meet such eventualities that Regulation-28(3) of the Regulations was conceived. However, the said Regulation was held bad for the reason that unless an enquiry is held and a conclusion is drawn that unauthorised absence is without justification, declaration that automatic cessation occurred on account of absence of employee is in violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India and also of the principles of natural justice. Viewed from this angle, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent under Regulation-28(3) of
