Inordinate delay in providing the inquiry report to the petitioner after disposal of the LPA led to unnecessary and avoidable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, causing prejudice to the petitioner and justifying the quashing of the entire proceedings.

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL, J.

1. This is a writ petition. Background facts leading to and necessary for its disposal are required to be stated first:

(a) Petitioner, Kafait Ullah, a Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police, was posted in District Police Line, Kathua in the year 1998. On 09.06.1998, a police party comprising of the petitioner and HC Paramjeet Singh among others headed by ASI Jagdish Dutt was deputed to Srinagar and Shopian for producing detenues from District Jail, Kathua and Sub-Jail, Hiranagar before the Courts of 1st and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar and Sub-Judge, Shopian. They proceeded by a Bus bearing registration No. JK02A-3361. On their way back from Shopian on 10.06.2009, they halted at Qazigund at about 9.00 PM. One detenue, namely, Abdul Rashid Bhat, wanted to answer a call of the nature. The petitioner and HC Paramjeet Singh took him to a toilet adjacent a Hotel. It is alleged that the detenue fled away taking advantage of darkness. Information in this regard was lodged at Police Station, Qazigund and was registered as FIR No. 87/98. ASI Jagdish Singh, HC Paramjeet Singh and the petitioner were served with Charge Sheet for dereliction of duties and facilitating escape of the detenue and departmental inquiry against them was initiated. The petitioner replied to the Charge Sheet and was put to inquiry. On conclusion of the inquiry, Superintendent of Police-Kathua-respondent No.4 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 06.03.1999 to the petitioner informing him that charges against him have been proved in the inquiry and asked him to show cause as to why the punishment of removal from service for the proved misconduct may not be imposed. Petitioner replied to this notice through his Advocate.

(b) After considering the reply filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 4 passed Order No.387 of 1999 dated 26.03.1999 removing the petitioner from service. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu-Kathua Range-respondent No.3 vide Order No.132 dated 25.03.2000. Petitioner assailed both these orders in SWP No.1555/2000 before this Court. This Court vide Judgment dated 10.11.2004 quashed both these orders finding that both the orders were bad because of non-furnishing of the copy of inquiry report to the petitioner. Having quashed both the orders, this Court issued following direction:

"With the quashment of these orders and the fact that the inquiry proceedings have not been questioned and nor the same can be said to be contrary to law, respondents are directed to pass fresh order after furnishing the inquiry report to the petitioner and providing him opportunity to make representation, within a period of three months, in accordance with law. Though impugned orders have been quashed, however, the petitioner's reinstatement shall depend upon the passing of fresh order by the respondents." (underling by me)

(c) In LPA (SW) No.48/2005 filed by the petitioner, a learned Division Bench vide order dated 11.04.2005 issued a clarification in regard to the direction issued by the Writ Court and in this regard, I quote the operative part of the order: Wide order dated 28.03.2005 notice was issued both in the condonation matter as well as in the appeal. Having heard counsel for the parties, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, being further of the opinion that the appellant must be allowed to challenge the finding of the enquiry officer lest furnishing him copy of the report would be meaningless, we clarify that on receipt of copy of the enquiry report, as directed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant would be entitled to challenge the findings of the Enquiry Officer in accordance with law."

(d) In order to comply with the judgment in the writ petition dated 10.11.2004 read with the order dated 11.04.2005 in the LPA, the Disciplinary Authority was required to pass fresh order after furnishing the inquiry report to the petitioner and providing him opportunity of