JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Order No. Estt/Appeal/2018/1923-25 dated 27.03.2018 passed by respondent No. 3 by virtue of which appeal of the petitioner against order of his disengagement has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order No. GB/VDC/Dis-Eng/15/20671-76 dated 23.06.2015 by virtue of which services of the petitioner as VDC SPO have been dispensed with. The petitioner has also sought a direction upon the respondents to reinstate him as VDC SPO along with back wages.

02. As per case of the petitioner, he was engaged as VDC SPO in pursuance to scheme launched by the Government vide Order No. 293 of 1995 dated 30.09.1995. It has been submitted that under the coercion of the respondents, the petitioner was made to share the honorarium that he was receiving with other members of Village Defence Committee (VDC) but when he refused to do so, respondent No. 4, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.06.2015 (supra), disengaged him from the roll of VDC.

03. The petitioner is stated to have challenged the aforesaid order by virtue of writ petition bearing SWP No. 2060/2015. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 27.11.2017 whereby the petitioner was given a liberty to prefer appeal/representation against the order of his disengagement before DIG, Doda- Bhaderwah or any other competent authority. Further a direction was issued to the said authority to dispose of the appeal/representation within four to six weeks. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the appeal/representation before respondent No. 3. However, the same was not decided by the said respondent within the stipulated time as a result whereof, the petitioner had to file a contempt petition before this Court. During pendency of the contempt petition, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 (supra) whereby appeal of the petitioner has been rejected.

04. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the grounds that he has not been given an opportunity of being heard before issuing the disengagement order or before rejecting his appeal against the said order. It has been further contended that punishment of disengagement imposed upon the petitioner is harsh in the given circumstances particularly when his role as VDC SPO has been appreciated by his superiors. It has been further contended that the respondents have not adhered to Rule 337 of the Police Rules while disengaging his services. It is being contended that no chargesheet has been served upon the petitioner and no regular enquiry into the charges has been held by the respondents before issuing the impugned order. It has also been contended that the petitioner was engaged as VDC SPO by the Government and, therefore, it was not open to respondent No. 4 to disengage his services.

05. The respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply thereto. In their reply, it has been submitted that the petitioner was never harassed or pressurized to share his honorarium with his other VDC members. According to the respondents, the services of the petitioner were disengaged on the basis of written complaint of the public of his native village as he used to annoy his co-villagers and was threatening to kill them with his service weapon. It has been submitted that as per the complaint lodged by the villagers, the petitioner used to remain in an intoxicated state and under the influence of liquor, he used to speak ill about others and would threaten to kill them. It has been submitted that the villagers got fed up with the misdeeds of the petitioner and sought his disengagement/disarmament.

06. According to the respondents, an enquiry was conducted by Additional SP, Bhaderwah regarding the allegations leveled against the petitioner by his co-villagers and it was established that the petitioner always remained in intoxicated state under the influence of alcohol and he was thre