1. Both the petitions titled above are disposed of by this common order as a common point arises for determination in these petitions. Petitioners, who were probationer police constables, have been terminated by the police authorities under Rule 187 of J&K Police Manual.

2. In SWP No. 270/96 titled Constable Bashir Ahmad v. State of J&K and others the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the police department. He has been terminated by means of order No. 1925 of 1992 dated 21.12.1992 for remaining on unauthorized absence.

3. In SWP No. 613/1999 titled Shabir Ahmad v. State of J&K and others the petitioner was appointed as Constable in J&K Police. He too has been terminated from service by means of order No. 389 of 1998 dated 3.9.1998 for remaining on unauthorized absence.

4. A common question which arises in these cases is as to whether the authorities could have terminated the services of the petitioners without holding any enquiry. Admittedly, the authorities have exercised their powers under Rule 187 of the J&K Police Manual and have terminated the services of the petitioners without holding any regular enquiry. The petitioners are aggrieved of the action of the authorities and have filed these writ petitions on the grounds that dispensing with the services of the petitioners without holding a proper enquiry is in violation of the service rules governing them as also violative of various provisions of the constitution of India and State constitution.

5. Respondents have vehemently opposed these petitions on the ground that in these cases the petitioners were still probationers and that under the provisions of Rule 187 a Superintendent of Police has got powers to discharge a probation from service without holding any enquiry if the authorities are of the view that such an official is not likely to become a good police officer. The powers, according to the State, have been exercised under Rule 187 and that the same are in accordance with rules and the provisions of the constitution.

6. Heard. I have considered the matter and have gone through the impugned orders. In Bashir Ahmads case (SWP 270 of 1996) the petitioner, a probationer, was deputed for basic R.T.C. to A.P.T.C Kathua vide office movement order No. Estt/III/op/23604-91 dated 18.11.1991. He allegedly absented from APTC with effect from 6.9.1992. The Principal struck off him from the rolls and reverted him back to his parent battalion. A notice was served upon him vide office Endt. No. Esstt/92/49/18 dated 4.11.1993 with a direction to report back to duty immediately but allegedly he neither reported back nor was anything heard from him. Commandant JKAP III Bn. Anantnag vide the impugned order ordered as under:-

"Whereas the said Prob. Constable absented from APTC Kathua with effect from 6.9.92. The Principal APTC Kathua vide his order bearing end No. APTC/Estt/589 93K dt.26.1.92 struck off the said Const. from the rolls of APTC and reverted him back to this Bn. Accordingly his absentee was recorded in the Bn daily dairy Vide D.D report No. 28 dated 5.11.92 with effect from 16.9.92 and is still at large.

Thereas a Notice was served upon the said prob. Const. at his home address vide his office Endt.No. Esstt/92/49/18 Dt. 4.11.93 with the direction to report back for duty immediately failing which action under rules will be taken against him. But neither the prob. Const. Bashir to report back for duty nor any thing was heard from his side.

Thereas, the prob. Constable was again directed to report back for duty vide this office signal No. Estt/92/20586 Dt. 13.12.92 through SHOP/S Karnah. But nothing was heard from his side till date.

Thereas, the service record of the prob. Constable was perused which reveals that he has been enroled in this Bn. On 1.12.1990 and during his short span of services he has absented for a period of 35 days from time to time which ahs been treated as dies-non.

It is evident that the prob. Constable is not inclined to serve the department, thus kee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document