1. Despite directions record has not been produced.

2. Petitioner, a Constable in the respondent department has been ordered to be discharged from service w.e.f 1st July 2002, the date of his absence vide order No. 53/2003 dated 15.01.2003 by respondent No.4.

3. The order of discharge has been passed on the allegation that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f 1st July 2002 till the passing of the discharge order. It is this order, which is called in question in this petition.

4. Perusal of the pleadings reveal that prior to discharge of the petitioner from services he was ordered to be placed under Suspension vide order dated 15th January 2002. Petitioner being aggrieved of the said order also has challenged the same as well in this writ petition.

5. Heard ld counsel for parties. Considered the matter.

Ld counsel for petitioner referred to the pleadings as are obtaining in the writ petition as also in rejoinder affidavit. The ld counsel submitted that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the year 1997 and was not on probation. The ld counsel submitted that in terms of Rule 187 of J&K Police Rules, a Constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer, provides for his discharge at any time within three years from the enrollment. The ld counsel submitted that the petitioner was enrolled in the year 1997, he could not be discharged. The ld counsel further submitted, assuming that the expression discharge has been wrongly used in the impugned order and further assuming that the petitioner has been dismissed from services, in such eventuality the respondent-competent authority was duty bound to initiate regular enquiry in accordance with the Rule 359 of Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules. The ld counsel while referring to the impugned order as also to reply affidavit filed by respondents submitted that it is admitted that no regular enquiry in accordance with Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules has been conducted in this case. Ld counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order in such circumstances being illegal deserves to be quashed.

6. Mr. A. M. Magray, ld Sr. AAG, appearing on behalf of respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner who is member of Police Department, a disciplined force, is required to discharge his duties in accordance with mandate of rules and is duty bound to obey the lawful orders of superior officers. Ld counsel further submitted that the petitioner was ordered to work in SOG and from the date he was relieved to join in SOG, he absconded and despite issuance of notice he did not resume his duties. So in the facts and circumstances of this case it can be safely said that petitioner had absconded. The ld counsel further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, though, the enquiry officer was appointed but enquiry could not be concluded for the reason that the petitioner had absconded and could not be contacted. The ld counsel also submitted that the petitioner is habitual absentee and earlier period of unauthorized absence of 157 days was treated as dies-non. The ld counsel submitted that such person cannot be retained in disciplined force. Ld counsel submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. True it is, that a member of a police force has to discharge his duties strictly in accordance with the mandate of law and in accordance with the lawful command of the superior officers. A member of police force cannot be permitted to play pranks with his duty, in a state where the necessity of having disciplined force is must for running the affairs of the state. A member of the police force is, thus, duty bound to discharge his duties honestly and in accordance with the mandate of law. A member of the police force if commits any misconduct is to be dealt with in accordance with the mandate of law and no unwarranted leniency is to be shown to the member of the disciplined force who has voluntarily committed any misconduct.

8. Our state is govern

Click Here to Read the rest of this document