The central legal point established in the judgment is that the order of removal must comply with the prescribed formalities and cannot be passed in a casual manner. The court emphasized the requirement of holding an enquiry before removal and the power to dispense with the enquiry in case of a probationer.

1. In the appeal at hand, the State has questioned the judgment/order of the learned Single Judge dated 23rd of March, 2005 rendered in SWP No. 56 of 2000, whereby quashing the order No. 831 of 1992 dated 16.04.1992 passed by appellant No. 3, removing respondent-writ petitioner (for short 'petitioner') from the rolls of JKAP 3rd Bn (Anantnag) on the ground of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 03.11.1991 till the passing of the order of removal.

2. The petitioner was selected as Constable vide DIG AP(K) Letter No. 243-45/PA/ARCK dated 29.08.1991.He joined his duties on 24.09.1991 as probationer and absented himself unauthorizedly w.e.f 03.11.1991. An entry was made in this regard in the daily dairy report No. 19 on 03.11.1991. The department waited for his return upto 16.04.1992. As he failed to resume duties, it was presumed that he was not willing to serve the department, as such removed from the rolls of the department vide order dated 16.04.1992. He challenged the said order of removal through the medium of SWP No. 56 of 2000 mainly on the ground that his services were terminated without holding an enquiry as envisaged under the rules governing the field, inasmuch as no opportunity of being heard was provided to him. The learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition along with bunch of other writ petitions of the similar nature by quashing the order of removal holding that it was passed without an enquiry. It was further held that in case the authority concerned felt that it was not practicable to hold an enquiry due to the absence, non-cooperation or hostile attitude of the petitioner, they should have exercised their powers under rule 359(ii)(2)(b) of J&K Police Manual (for short 'Police Rules'), which empowers the authority to dispense with the enquiry on the ground of impracticability. Aggrieved of the said judgment, State is before us through the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Magray at length. There is no assistance rendered from the side of the respondent as he goes unrepresented. However, we have gone through the writ court record ourselves.

4. Mr. Magray contended before us that despite the appellants have specifically raised a preliminary objection before the writ court, questioning the abnormal delay of more than seven years in filing the writ petition, the impugned judgment has been passed without dealing with the said issue at all, more so, when no explanation has been put forth by the petitioner for this huge delay and this flaw by itself is sufficient to uphold the order of his removal from service.

5. Mr. Magray then submitted that even otherwise the appellants were not under law required to hold a regular enquiry against the petitioner as he was a probationer and his services were to be confirmed only after successful completion of probation period. In the case at hand, the authority concerned has exercised its power under Rule 187 of Police Rules, which empowers it to discharge a constable from the organization, if he does not prove to be an efficient police official. According to the learned State counsel, Rule 359(10) of Police Rules, empowers the competent authority to dispense with the enquiry in case of a probationer. He thus contended that the petitioner has no case on any count.

6. In support of his contentions, Mr. Magray has relied upon the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 218 of 2005 (connected with other appeals) decided on 08.10.2007 and LPA No. 128 of 2006 decided on 08.06.2011.

7. We are not in agreement with any of the submissions advanced by Mr. Magray.

8. On examining the writ court record minutely, we find that before passing the order of removal dated 16.04.1992, a notice was received by the petitioner through SHO, Police Station Dooru directing him to resume to his duties within seven days. This notice is dated 27.02.1992 and annexed as Annexure-A with the main writ petition.

9. The case set up by the petitioner is that immediately after receiving the afo