WP(C) 3435/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PK MUSAHARY Heard Mr. I Choudhury , learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R.Gog oi , Learend Govt. Advocate. The petitioner’s claim is that he was appointed as constable in the Assam Police in the year 2006 and was sent for training in the Assam Police Training Center at Dergaon, Assam. While he was in training, he was discharged from service w.e. f. 01.02.2007 vide order No. BN-21/ IR/ R/07/ 215461 dated 03.02.2007 passed by the Commandant , 21st AP (IR) Battalion , Hailakandi without giving any show ca use notice or initiating disciplinary proceeding against him. It is the case of the petitioner that his aforesaid termination is against the principle of natura l justice and fairplay in action and also in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Respondent No. 4, Commandant 21st AP (IR) Batallion has filed an affidavit - in- opposition stating inter-alia that the petitioner was a ’recruit constable’ and ’had not completed even his basic training’ and as per the appointment orde r, the service of the petitioner was purely temporary and he might be terminate d from service without assigning any reason. On going through the impugned order dated 03.02.2007, it is found that the petit ioner was arrested in connection with Baihata Chariali Police Station Case No. 9 0/2006 u/s 366 A/ 34 IPC on 15.06.2006. He was granted 4(four) days OSI period w .e.f. 31.5.2006 a.m. to 03.06.2006 p.m. as LWP vide order dated 05.06.2006. He w as discharged from training center due to long unauthorized absence and mis-cond uct w.e.f. 23.06.2006. In the impugned order itself, the authority, Respondent N o. 4, has clearly mentioned the period of unauthorized absence. The petitioner d id not bother to make a representation before the authorities concerned for cons ideration of his re-instatement and straightaway filed this writ petition before this Court for taking him back in service maintaining the status-quo- ante in r espect of his status , pay and allowances etc. On the face of the speaking order passed by the authority discharging the petiti oner from service, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. The petition is found devoid of any merit and accordingly it is dismissed. However, the petitio ner may file a representation before the appropriate authority claiming re-insta tement, if so advised, and if such representation is filed, the same may be cons idered and disposed of .