JUDGEMENT

JAVED IQBAL, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant herein against the judgment dated 13.09.2017 (hereinafter for short "the impugned judgment") whereunder the writ petition being SWP No. 2535/2011 filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed by the writ court.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in the memo of appeal, the facts emerging from the record would reveal that the appellant herein while working as a Senior Grade Police Constable in the respondent department came to be discharged from service in terms of Order No. 738/2001, dated 19.11.2001, issued by respondent no. 4 herein. The said order came to be called in question by the appellant herein in the writ petition supra inter alia on the fundamental ground that the respondents before discharging the petitioner from the service did not follow the mandatory provisions of Rule 359 of the POLICE RULES .

In the reply filed to the said petition by the respondents herein, the contentions raised and the grounds urged came to be opposed on the premise that before discharging the petitioner from service, Rule 359 of the POLICE RULES was duly complied with.

The Writ Court after considering the writ petition supra while having regard to the pleadings of the parties inasmuch as the record of enquiry produced by the respondents dismissed the petition opining that the respondents have followed the mandate of Rule 359 of the POLICE RULES .

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the counsel for the appellant the writ court failed to consider the petition of the petitioner in its true and correct perspective inasmuch as did not correctly appreciate the record of enquiry produced by the respondents, whereas on the contrary the counsel for the respondents controverted the said contention of the counsel for the appellant.

4. In view of the rival contentions of the appearing counsel for the parties inasmuch as having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the matter it becomes imperative for us to examine the record of enquiry made available by the counsel for the respondents, however, before proceeding to examine the same, a reference hereunder to the provisions of Rule 359 and Rule 360 of the POLICE RULES , 1960 (for short the Rules) framed in terms of Sections 8 and 12 of the POLICE ACT , Samvat 1983 (1927 A.D.) (for short Act of Svt. 1983) would be advantageous:

"359. Procedure in departmental enquiries: (1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries:-

(a) The enquiry shall, whenever, possible be conducted by a Gazetted Officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon the accused officer. Any other gazetted officer or an Inspector specially empowered by the Minister I/C Police Department, to hold departmental enquiries (vide Order No. 636-C, dated 27.06.1945) may be deputed to hold an enquiry or may institute an enquiry on his own initiative against an accused police officer who is directly subordinate to him, except that in the case of a complaint against a constable the enquiry may be conducted by an Inspector. The final order, however, may be passed only by an officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon the accused police officer.

(2) The officer conducting the enquiry shall summon the accused police officer before him and shall record and read out to him a statement summarising the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded.

(3) If the accused