The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of appointment based on adverse antecedents must adhere to the principles of natural justice and relevant legal provisions, and any stigmatic cancellation requires providing an opportunity of being heard.

JUDGMENT

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, J. - Through the medium of instant Letters Patent Appeal - LPA, the Appellants are challenging the judgment dated 23.05.2019, hereinafter for short referred to as impugned judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge in case titled Mohammad Rafiq Najar vs. State and Ors, whereby the writ court while allowing the writ petition has quashed the order No. 742 PHQ of 2008 dated 29.02.2008 by virtue of which the appointment of the petitioner/respondent herein had been cancelled ab initio.

2. Before the merits of the matter are discussed, it would be proper to refer to the facts, in brief, which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

Brief Facts:

3. Appellants in terms of order No. 39 of 2008 dated 14.02.2008 appointed writ petitioner/respondent herein as Constable in IRP 12th Battalion pursuant to his selection as such made in terms of PHQ Order No. 1500/07 dated 27.04.2007. While the petitioner/respondent herein was performing his duties as Constable, an order bearing No. 742 PHQ of 2008 dated 29.02.2008 came to be issued by the appellants whereby the selection of the petitioner/respondent herein was cancelled ab initio. The said order of cancellation is stated to have been issued on the ground that the APHQ J&K vide communication No. APHQ/Legal-Opinion/2007/49296-97 dated 11.12.2007 intimated that the petitioner/respondent herein is a released Pak Trained Militant of AlBarq Outfit having been involved in a criminal case registered as FIR No. 220/98 for the commission of offences punishable in terms of Section 10 of the Criminal Law Act.

4. Aggrieved of the order of cancellation, the petitioner/respondent herein filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 641/2008 before the writ court challenging the order of cancellation inter alia on the grounds that no show cause notice was issued to him before issuance of the cancellation order, not to speak of conducting a regular enquiry, which is violative of principles of natural justice; no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner/respondent herein, the petitioner/respondent herein has falsely been implicated in case FIR No. 220/98 and the trial of the said case has also resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner/respondent herein, the petitioner/respondent herein had not concealed anything from the authorities, as such, the order of cancellation is bad in law.

5. The writ court, upon consideration of the matter and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of cancellation in terms of the impugned judgment. The operative portion of the impugned judgment is taken note of herein below:

18.'Viewing the matter in its totality, I am of the opinion that the order No. 742 PHQ of 2008 dated 29.02.2008 is bereft of any legal force and is required to be quashed, as such is quashed accordingly. Consequently, the respondents shall allow the petitioner to join the service. However, if the respondents feel it expedient to alter the condition of service of the petitioner or find any scope to proceed for awarding of any punishment, same shall be done while affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and in accordance with the Service Regulations governing the field.'

6. The appellants, feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment have filed the instant LPA to seek setting aside of the same in acceptance of the instant appeal.

7. Upon notice, petitioner/respondent herein appeared.

8. The appellants are questioning the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that the writ court did not appreciate the fact that the antecedents of petitioner/respondent herein were reported to be adverse, being a released PTM of AlBarq Outfit and involved in case FIR No. 220/98. It is pleaded in the LPA that a police cop is supposed to possess a good moral character and must have a clean and unblemished integrity which the petitioner/respondent herein does not possess and his continuation in the Police Force, as such, was unwarran