The importance of impeccable conduct for employment in the police department and the applicability of government orders for regularization based on specific conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petition is not admitted to hearing so far. The same is taken up for final consideration with the consent of the counsels for both the sides.

2. The petitioners herein, who were working as SPOs with the respondents, were disengaged from the date of registration of FIR No. 62/2010 registered with Police Station, Doda under Sections 458/376/382 RPC. The petitioners were alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix and also committed theft of ornaments of the prosecutrix after entering into the house of the prosecutrix. It is submitted in the petition that Lekh Raj who was constable at the time of registration of the FIR was also the accused along with the petitioners in the aforesaid FIR has been reinstated by the respondents after the challan was dismissed presented in the aforesaid FIR.

3. The petitioners have challenged the disengagement order passed by the respondent No. 4 on the ground that the order impugned was passed without observing principle of natural justice as the petitioners were not granted prior hearing before passing the impugned order. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the order impugned. It is also submitted that the petitioners and Lekh Raj stand acquitted in the criminal case registered against them and further that Lekh Raj has since been reinstated but the respondents are not willing to reinstate the petitioners though their case is at par with the said Lekh Raj.

4. The petitioners seek quashment of order of disengagement and further seek relief of their re-engagement as Constable in view of the Government orders passed by the respondents from time to time.

5. The respondents have filed objections to the petition, wherein the factual aspects of the case are not disputed. The stand taken by the respondents is that as the petitioners have breached the trust and conduct of disciplinary force and the FIR stands registered against them, they cannot be considered for regularization in the department.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

7. The petitioners herein and Lekh Raj who was constable when the FIR came to be lodged against all the three accused stand acquitted by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda in the FIR No. 62/2010 vide judgment dated 30.12.2020 on the ground that the evidence of the witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable version. It may be noticed herein that though the order of disengagement of the petitioners was passed on 22.03.2010, the respondents did not challenge the same for a decade as it appears that they waited for the outcome of the challan which was produced against them in FIR No. 62/2010.

8. As the petitioners failed to approach the court against the order of disengagement passed in the year 2010 for a decade it shows that the petitioners had no grievance as such of their disengagement order passed by the respondents. Therefore, they cannot challenge the order impugned in the present petition on the ground that no Show Cause Notice was issued to them though the same should have been issued before disengaging them as SPOs.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the photocopy of judgment passed by this Court in SWP No. 1998/2006 titled 'Pishori Lal & Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.' decided on 10.09.2007, taken on record, in support of his contention that the SPOs cannot be inflicted a major punishment like removal from the service without conducting enquiry in terms of Police Act, 1983 (1927 A.D). The court is of the view that this judgment does not come to aid the petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have challenged their disengagement from the police department after a decade meaning thereby that they had no grievance as such of their removal by virtue of order impugned in the writ petition.

10. The next relief sought for regularization as constable by the petitioners is on the