1. Challenge in this petition is directed towards the order No. 276/1992 dated 05.05.1992 passed by the respondent No.4, Commandant, 08th Bn JKAP Srinagar, removing the petitioner from his services w.e.f. 21.02.1992, from the date he absented from duties and order No. M-15/93-37066 dated 17.09.1993 whereby his representation has been rejected by the Director General of Police.

2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that while working as constable in 08th Bn. JKAP, he proceeded on leave on 09th of Feb. 1992 for the period of ten days with two prefixing days with permission to leave the station on account of illness of his father and the petitioner was to rejoin his duties an 21st of Feb. 1992 but because of the deteriorating condition of his ailing father he could not resume his duties until May, 1992."During this period, he sought extension by sending telegraphic message. It is alleged that he appeared before the respondents No.4 for resumption of duties but instead he was told that he has been removed from the services vide impugned order dated 05.05.1992 for his continuous and unauthorised absence. He made a representation to DGP for his reinstatement which came to be rejected vide communication No. 15/93-37066 dated 17.09.1993.

3. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, setting out the grounds in the appeal that neither any inquiry has been conducted before passing the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been removed from the services nor any show cause notice was issued to him to meet the requirement of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has been condemned without affording him "an opportunity of being heard.

4. Respondents have filed objections/ counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has been removed from the services under the impugned order and due inquiry has. been conducted and action thereafter under Rule 187 of the J&K Police Manual has been taken in removing the petitioner from the services. The case of the petitioner, was considered by the Police Head Quarter and has been rejected on merit. The petitioner is a habitual absentee and the character verification obtained in respect of petitioner was found adverse as per the report of the-GID. The petitioner was supposed to report for duties on 21st of Feb. 1992. On his failure to report back; he was marked absent in the daily dairy of) Battalion. He was also informed through the local S.H.O. for resuming his duties through signals dated 29.02.1992 and 27.04.1992, Despite that, the petitioner having not resumed his duties was discharged vide impugned order which suffers from no illegality. Further the allegation is that the petitioner was found a suspect being involved in anti-national activities.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. So far as the allegations of respondents that the petitioner was found involved in anti-national activities, there is no evidence on record to show that after the appointment of the petitioner in the year 1990, he is found involved in any anti-national activities. The evidence taken into consideration by the respondent relates to a period before his appointment. This accusation against the petitioner cannot be weighed for the reasons that this circumstance has already been noticed and considered by the respondents at the time of making an order of appointment to the petitioner.

7. Dealing with the question of absence from duties, it is admitted case of the petitioner that he proceeded on leave on 09th of Feb. 1992 and was expected to resume his duties on 21st of Feb. 1992. The petitioner has stated in the petition that he sought extention of leave by telegraphic message which has not been denied by the respondents while replying the averments of para 3 of the petition.

8: Removal from service is a major penalty and cannot be imposed sipiicitor without observing the principles of natural justice and affording an opportunity to the delinquent employee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document