Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

1. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in the year 1999, so was not a probationer; for terminating the services of such Constable, enquiry in terms of Rule 359 of the Police Rules was imperative. Vide order No. 163 of 2009 dated 19.02.2009 he has been discharged from the services with effect from the date of his continuous absence i.e. 18.12.2008. Aggrieved thereof instant petition has been filed, which earlier was allowed vide judgment dated 27.07.2011, wherein it was observed that the petitioner was not on probation as he had completed 10 years of his service, therefore, for his discharge from the services full-fledged enquiry in terms of Rule 359 of Police Rules was required. Furthermore, he had been discharged without any opportunity of being heard. The order was set aside; period of absence was to be determined on the basis of the outcome of the enquiry. It was also observed that in case no enquiry shall be initiated then he shall not be entitled to the salary from the date of his absence till the date of the judgment.

Against, the said judgement LPA No. 88/2012 was filed by the State, which has been allowed. Judgment dated 27.07.2011 has been