The petitioner, a constable in Jammu & Kashmir Police, has, by means of the present writ petition, challenged the order dated December 12, 1990 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar by which his services were terminated on the ground of unauthorised absence from duties. The order was passed after dispensing with the requirements of holding an enquiry under Section 126 (2) (b) of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution.

From the facts set out in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner while on duty at Lal Bazar, Srinagar on November 5, 1989 was injured in cross-firing and had to be admitted in Bone and Joint Hospital, Srinagar where he remained till November 15, 1989. It was because of the above injuries that the petitioner could not attend to his duties and proceeded ob medical leave after due information as would appear from the Daily Register of the Police Lines, extract from which have been filed as annexures P2 and P3 to the writ petition.

On recovery from illness, when the petitioner reported for duty and wanted to sign the "Roznamcha", he was informed that his service were terminated by the impugned order dated December 12, 1990 a copy of which has been filed as annexure-P5 to the writ petition. This order is challenged on the grounds inter-alia, that the same was passed not only in violation of Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, but also in violation of Rule 359 of J&K Police Manual 1960.

The opposite party has filed counter-affidavit in which they do not dispute that the petitioner was on duty on November 5, 1989 and has sustained injuries and that*he had to be admitted in the Hospital from where he was discharged on November 15, 1989. What is contended by the opposite party is that as soon as the petitioner had received injuries and was admitted in the Hospital it was his duty to inform the concerned authorities. The opposite party contends that although petitioner had made an entry in the police diary that he was proceeding on leave, it was made without proper permission from the Deputy Superintendent (Dar) or any other officer commanding the force in District Police Lines which constituted an act of indiscipline on the part of the petitioner. The opposite party has further contended that the petitioner, in any case, absented himself from duty unauthorisedly with effect from December 17, 1989 and did not report for duty inspite of several notices having been served upon him and, therefore, his services were terminated after dispensing with the enquiry the holding of which in the particular circumstances of the case, was not reason-ably practicable.

Section 126 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution provides certain safe-guards to a person employed by the State namely: (1) No person who is a member of a Civil Service of the State or holds a civil post under the State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and that no such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 126 of the J&K Constitution speaks of three situations where the enquiry contemplate by sub-section (2) can be dispensed with. These situations are: -

(a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge: or

(b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or removed a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry: or

(c) Where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry."

Sub-section (3) of Section 126 of the J&K Constitution provides as under: -

(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, que

Click Here to Read the rest of this document