Per Virender Singh, J.

1. Aggrieved of the order No. 1443 of 2000 dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu (respondent No. 4) whereby removing the appellant (for short writ petitioner) as Constable from the rolls of District Jammu, he filed SWP No. 1594 of 2001 seeking quashment of the said order, which now stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge Vide judgement dated 7th of March, 2006. Hence the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

2. The writ petitioner was a probationer and discharged under Rule 137 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual (hereinafter to be referred to as `Police Rules') on the ground that after he was appointed as Constable in Police Department in 1999, he had to proceed for basic training course along with other recruits, but he willfully absented himself from District Police Line, Jammu, as such, avoided the basic training course. Ultimately, Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 4) passed the order of his removal from the rolls with effect from the date he absented himself unauthorizedly i.e 18-08-2000.

3. The main thrust of argument on behalf of the writ petitioner before the learned writ court was that absence being the ground of discharge, necessarily required an enquiry under Rule 359 of the Police Rules and omission on the part of the respondents to hold an enquiry has rendered the order of termination illegal. The learned Writ Court did not find force in the submissions and while referring to Rule 359(10) of the Police Rules dismissed the writ petition, holding that the order was neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature and Rule 187 of Police Rules supports the action of discharge. The learned Writ Court also relied upon the decision of Apex Court handed down in case State of Punjab & ors v. Sukhwinder Singh reported as 2005 AIR SCW 3477.

4. Heard Mr. C.M. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents. Perused the memo of appeal and the Writ Court record.

5. Assailing the impugned judgement, Mr. Gupta submits that the writ petitioner was always willing to join the basic training course along with other selected recruits but due to certain unavoidable circumstances as he had suddenly fell ill, he could not make it. He then submits that all these facts in detail were averred in the main writ petition by the writ petitioner and the respondents did not deny the pleadings made in this regard. Even the documentary evidence in support of his case is neither challenged nor denied by the respondents in their objections. Learned Counsel goes on to submit that without considering the aforesaid facts, the writ petitioner was treated as absent from duty and ultimately an order of removal under the garb of Rule 187 of the Police Rules has been passed.

6. Mr. Gupta further submits that the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu, on the face of it, is stigmatic in nature as the writ petitioner has been declared as deserter, unreliable person and bad material, which is out of the scope of Rule 187 of Police Rules. On this count also, the order of removal is bad.

7. Referring to the latest judgement handed down by Division Bench of this court in case Naseer Ahmad v. State & ors, LPA No. 86 of 2008 decided on Ist of April, 2011, Mr. Gupta submits that this court has even gone to the extent of observing that since the order under Rule 187 of Police Rules is to be passed only when the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the official is not likely to prove a good police office, such an order, by its very nature and basis, always be a stigmatic, therefore, in every case where power is exercised under this rule, enquiry is required to be done before passing an order. According to the learned counsel, on the aforesaid rationale, the impugned judgement of learned Single Judge is otherwise not sustainable.

8. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Gupta prays for allowing of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document