IMPORTANT POINT
A discharge order that is stigmatic and punitive in nature must be preceded by a proper inquiry and an opportunity for the employee to defend themselves, as mandated by principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Wasim Sadiq Nargal, J.

1. The petitioner in the instant petition is aggrieved of and has assailed the Judgment and Order dated 1st July, 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu, (for short "CAT") in T.A. No. 5061/2021 (SWP No. 945/2010), by virtue of which, the T.A. (Writ Petition) filed by the petitioner against the order of discharge has been dismissed, as such, he seeks issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of:-

"i) Certiorari, quashing Judgment and Order dated 1st July, 2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Jammu in T.A. No. 5061/2021 (SWP No. 945/2010), by virtue of which, the T.A. (writ petition) filed by the petitioner against the order of discharge has been dismissed without following principle of natural justice.

ii) Certiorari, quashing Order No. 457/2009, dated 31st October, 2009 issued by the respondent no. 3 virtue of which, the petitioner has been discharged without enquiry and without following principle of natural justice.

iii) Mandamus, commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service retrospectively with all consequential benefits."

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge taken in the instant writ petition, a brief factual matrix leading to the filing of present writ petition is reproduced as under:-

Factual Matrix

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Armed Police and, as per the stand of the petitioner, he has joined his duties on 23rd February, 1993. And after more than one year of his service, while discharging the duties, he became ill in the month of May, 1994 and, accordingly, he after informing his immediate senior officers, left for his home to seek proper medical treatment. The petitioner thereafter resumed his duties on 5th July, 1994 and subsequently, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him, however, no charge sheet was ever served upon him nor he was afforded any opportunity of being heard, therefore, the enquiry was conducted in flagrant violation of Rule 359 of Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules. The further case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the said enquiry officer was, however, made aware of the reason of absence from duty by the petitioner, who while agreeing with those reasons recommended that the period of absence of the petitioner be treated as "Dies Non".

4. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 3, after receiving the recommendation of enquiry officer, has issued the show cause against the petitioner as to why he should not be discharged from the service. Moreover, as the ill luck would have it, the petitioner again fell ill and sought permission from his senior officers on 6th September, 1994, which was ultimately granted in his favour. Besides this, the petitioner remained under medical treatment and resumed his duties on 7th November, 1994, where he came to know that he had already been discharged from services by the respondent no. 3 vide Order No. 666 of 1994, dated 2nd November, 1994.

5. Feeling aggrieved of aforesaid order of discharge, the petitioner has filed writ petition, which was registered as SWP No. 390/2002 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 22nd May, 2009. For facility of reference, operative part of aforesaid Judgment is reproduced as under:-

"... For the above stated reasons, this petition is allowed, the impugned Order No. 666/1994, dated 2nd November, 1994 passed by the respondent no. 3 is quashed. The respondents are given liberty to pass order either under Rule 187 of J&K Police Manual in case they so choose or they may conduct regular enquiry. It is further made clear the petitioner is not entitled to any salary from the date he was discharged till passing of this Judgment. Disposed of..."

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

6. Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad Rather, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that after passing of the aforesaid Judgment dated 22n