Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1340
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, J, MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, A
Ram Krishan – Appellant
Versus
D/o Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
T.A./5561/2021
Mr. M.I. Sherkhan, Mr. Hunar Gupta, ld DAG
Dismissal of a public servant requires adherence to due process and principles of natural justice; failure to provide a fair hearing renders the dismissal void.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311 - J&K Police Rules - Rule 359 - Dismissal of police employee - Dismissal order quashed due to lack of proper inquiry and violation of principles of natural justice - Inquiry not conducted as per required procedures, denying the employee a fair chance to defend himself. (Paras 10, 12, 20)
(B) Natural Justice - Fundamental principles - Employee must be informed of charges and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before dismissal - Failure to provide such opportunity renders dismissal void ab initio. (Paras 12, 15)
(C) Proportionality - Punishment for misconduct must be proportionate to the offense - Dismissal deemed excessive given the circumstances of medical treatment and long service record. (Paras 16, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable in J&K Police, was dismissed for unauthorized absence during medical treatment. He claimed dismissal was arbitrary and lacked due process, as he had been denied a chance to defend himself. (Paras 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the dismissal was illegal and arbitrary, lacking adherence to the procedural requirements of the J&K Police Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution. A fresh inquiry was mandated. (Paras 20, 21)
Issues: The main issues included whether the dismissal adhered to the principles of natural justice and whether the punishment was proportionate to the alleged misconduct. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dismissal order was void due to the lack of a proper inquiry, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural safeguards in disciplinary actions against public servants. (Paras 12, 20)
Result: The dismissal order was quashed and a fresh inquiry was directed.
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 2515/2010 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/5561/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “ Writ of certiorari, quashing the inquiry and Order No.200 of 2010 being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide and passed in the in violation of Police rules, article 311 of Constitution of India and article/section 126 of J&K Constitution and also in violation of article 359 of J&K Police rules.
b) Writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Head constable in J&K Police retrospectively along with all emoluments of service, including monetary benefits, seniority and promotion.
c) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued in favour the petitioner and against the respondents.”
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The petitioner, a permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India, served as a Head Constable in the J&K Police under No. 158/D. He was initially recruited as a Constable on 21.01.1979 and had completed 32 years of dedicated service. While in service, the petitioner suffered from a severe medical condition identified as STI LBA Disc Problem. Consequently, on 26.03.2010, he applied for leave and permission to leave the station due to his deteriorating health. The petitioner’s immediate superior verbally assured him that his leave would be sanctioned, and based on this assurance, the petitioner left the station on 28.03.2010 to seek medical treatment at Government Medical College, Jammu. He continued to undergo treatment at the Emergency Wing of GMC Jammu from 30.04.2010 to 21.08.2010. During this period, the petitioner submitted multiple requests to extend his leave, accompanied by supporting medical documents, but no official communication or response was provided by the department.
b) Subsequently, on 23.07.2010, the department issued a notice through the Additional Superintendent of Police, instructing the petitioner to resume his duties. Despite his immediate response and attempt to rejoin duty, the petitioner was denied permission. Despite repeated efforts to report back to duty, no inquiry was conducted, and his joining was persistently refused. On 13.10.2010, Order No. 200 of 2010 was passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. The impugned order alleged that a prior notice dated 08.05.2010 had been served on the petitioner through one SG. CL. Mohd Ashraf, No. 432/D of DPL Doda. The petitioner contended that this notice was never served, nor was it pasted at his residence, making the dismissal arbitrary and unfair. The dismissal order also claimed that the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 03.06.2010, a fact the petitioner only learned about after the dismissal order had been issued. Allegedly, an inquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police Headquarters, Doda, but no intimation regarding the inquiry or a hearing opportunity was given to the petitioner. Only the notice dated 23.07.2010 was served upon the petitioner, to which he responded immediately. Despite approaching various authorities, including the SSP Doda, ASP Doda, and DIG concerned, the petitioner was denied rejoining.
c) The petitioner claimed that the dismissal was motivated by malafide intentions as the SSP Doda, Mr. Parbhat Singh, harbored personal enmity against him. Earlier, the petitioner had refused to perform an illegal task assigned by the SSP Doda, which resulted in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the dismissal order appears to have been passed in retaliation. Furthermore, the impugned order claimed that a summary of allegations had been served to the petiti
