The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for holding an inquiry before discharging an employee, as mandated by the J&K Police Rules, 1960, and the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

1. Respondent no.8, in exercise of power under Rule 359 of the Police Rules, has discharged the petitioner from service vide Order No.689 of 2002 dated 24th Oct., 2002, of which petitioner is aggrieved. Counter to writ petition was filed by respondents and petitioner thereto has filed rejoinder.

2. As Constable, petitioner was appointed in the year 1994. He was posted in 4th Battalion of J&K Armed Police, after she completed her training. She was transferred to Security Headquarters, Srinagar, and relieved from 4th Bn JKAP, Jammu, on 20th Sept., 2000 vide DD Report No. 10, dated 20th Sept., 2000.

3. According to petitioner, she submitted a representation to Inspector General of Police, pleading her illness as she remained admitted in Police Hospital from 22nd September 2000. Discharge sheet, placed on record, shows that she was advised bed rest for one week by Gynecologist in Police Hospital, Jammu, at the time of her discharge from the Hospital on 25th September 2000. Her contention is that she solemnized inter-religious marriage out of her own freewill and immediately thereafter she started facing severe threat to her life and had to run form pillar to post to save her life.

4. Petitioner claims that because of aforesaid marriage, a communal tension was created and due to the communal frenzy, she was facing severe threat to her life and the police was not providing her any protection. As projected by the petitioner, since she was planning to marry out of her own freewill outside her religion, as such, she was attached with Inspector General of Police, Security, Srinagar, at the instance of her father as her father met respondent no.8 to stall the marriage. Petitioner contends that even her attachment was managed with Inspector General of Police (Security), to cause her harassment. It is further contention of petitioner that even the order, attaching her with Security Headquarters, Srinagar, was a single order, which was never communicated in writing to her but she was attached with Inspector General of Police (Security) only on telephonic instructions. As per the communication placed on record, petitioner had intimated Inspector General of Police (Security) about her illness vide her letter dated 23rd September 2000 and that after her marriage a false FIR was also registered, thus, involving her and her husband. The FIR in question, as per the judgment placed on record, was finally quashed by this Court on 20th September 2003 in a petition under section 561-A Cr. PC, filed by petitioner and her husband.

5. The submission of petitioner is that while she was on run along with her husband, she had also to move out of the State, so as to save her life and while on the run she became seriously ill also, for which, medical record has also been placed on record.

6. Respondents, on the other hand, in their counter affidavit, claim that petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 20th Sept., 2000 to 21st October 2002, after she was relieved from 4th Bn JKAP (Security) on 20th September 2000. It is the insisted by respondents that petitioner's absence was willful and deliberate. Respondents, denying petitioner to have been admitted in Police Hospital, claim that the story of illness is also fabricated. Respondents however, do not refute the discharge of petitioner from Police Hospital on 25th September 2000 and aver that petitioner ought to have joined Battalion Headquarters after availing the rest as advised by the doctors.

7. Respondents avow that petitioner solemnized marriage within 10 days of her discharge from hospital and maintain that she should have joined back even after inter-religious marriage. Respondents claim to have flashed the wireless messages to secure the presence of petitioner apart from publication of notice in newspapers and according to them petitioner even, after aforesaid messages/notice, did not join. The registration of the FIR is not denied, but in para-3 of the counter affidavit respondents