SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5899

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.S.Latif, Judicial Member, Prasant Kumar, Administrative Member
Mushtaq Ahmad Peir – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
T.A.NO.: 4525 OF 2021 (SWP NO. 419 OF 2017)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shabir Ahmad Naik
For the Respondents: Mr. Waseem Gul, GA

Non-compliance with J&K Police Rules 349 (District Magistrate reference) and 359 (enquiry procedure) violates natural justice, rendering police constables' dismissal orders null; fresh enquiry permitted without backwages.

Headnote:(A) J&K Police Rules, 1960 - Rules 349 and 359 - Departmental enquiry against police constables - Non-compliance with Rule 349 requiring reference to District Magistrate before enquiry into alleged offences under colour of duty renders enquiry a nullity - Rule 359 mandates strict adherence to procedure in departmental enquiries including opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, produce defence witnesses, and supply relevant documents - Violation of principles of natural justice vitiates dismissal orders - Show cause notice must provide sufficient information for effective defence as per 'reasonable opportunity' test. (Paras 5, 9, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of enquiry officer’s role - Enquiry officer to conduct enquiry and submit findings only, without recommending punishment or acting as judge in own cause - Punishment order must reflect application of mind to enquiry findings and defence submissions, not mechanical concurrence. (Paras 2.10(ii), 2.10(iii))

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, police constables on guard duty at a protected residence, faced a violent mob attack resulting in injuries to them, burning of guard room, and snatching of service weapons. FIR registered for mob violence. Placed under suspension, departmental enquiry held finding negligence, cowardice, and dereliction of duty, leading to dismissal orders later upheld on appeal.

Findings of Court:
Impugned dismissal order and appellate rejection quashed for violating Rules 349 and 359; respondents permitted fresh enquiry within four months with petitioners' association; no backwages entitlement; intervening period for pensionary benefits to be decided post-enquiry; criminal FIR unaffected.

Issues: Whether departmental enquiry complied with mandatory procedural safeguards under Rules 349 and 359; adequacy of reasonable opportunity including cross-examination and document supply; validity of punishment without District Magistrate reference.

Ratio Decidendi: Enquiry conducted without District Magistrate sanction under Rule 349 and breaching Rule 359 procedure (no cross-examination, no defence witnesses, no document supply) fails natural justice test; such orders liable to be set aside allowing fresh compliant enquiry.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of incident and dismissal proceedings (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioners' grounds challenging enquiry procedure (Para 3)
3. respondents defend dismissal for negligence and cowardice (Para 4)
4. petitioners argue violation of rule 349 and natural justice (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
5. court finds breach of rules 349 and 359 (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
6. dismissal orders quashed; fresh enquiry directed (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

ORDER 

M.S.Latif, Member (Judl.) :-

Instant TA/SWP was initially filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir where the case was admitted for hearing on 18.08.2017. Subsequently, the case came to be transferred to this Bench of the Tribunal vide Hon’ble High Court’s order dated 01.12.2020 and it is registered as Transferred Application (TA) No. 4525 of 2021. Petitioners herein have filed this petition praying for following reliefs–

“(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, for quashment of order of Dismissal bearing No. 339 of 2016 dated 01.11.2016 passed by Respondent No.5 by virtue of which the petitioners have been dismissed from the services of the respondent department.

(b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, for quashment of order No.66 of 2017 dated 02.02.2017 passed by Respondent no.4 by virtue of which the Appeal filed by the petitioners have been rejected.

(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioners against the Posts held by them before the order impugned came to be issued.

(d) Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide all the consequential service benefits to the Petitioners consequent upon their reinstatement against the posts held by them

(e) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper also be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the Respondents.”

2. Case of the petitioners in nutshell, as stated in the TA, is as under:-

2.1 Petitioners were substantively holding the posts of Constables in the J&K Police and were deployed by the respondent department on guard duties at Residential Guard of Shri Nazir Ahmad Laway, Hon’ble Member Parliament Rajya Sabha.

2.2 On 31.08.2016 an unruly mob of about 40000 people attacked the residential house of above said Member Parliament with petrol bombs, stones and lathies resulting in damage to the property. The petitioners performing their duties with vigilance tried to protect life and property of Member Parliament but because of attack by said violent unruly mob the petitioners received serious injuries and taking advantage of the injuries of the petitioner, the unruly mob succeeded in burning the Guard room and also managed to snatch and decamp with their Service Rifles along with the ammunition, but the petitioner while performing their duties saved the life and property of Member Parliament. They retaliated the attack on part of the unruly mob with zeal and courage.

2.3 In connection with the aforesaid incident, an FIR bearing No. 199/2016 of Police Station Kulgam came to be registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 436, 392, 307 RPC and 13 ULA At, 3PSS Act, 3 PEPO and the investigation was set into motion.

2.4 The petitioners were placed under suspension in terms of order no. 254 dated 01.09.2016 and a departmental enquiry for enquiring into the conduct of the petitioners’ duties on the said date was ordered for. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, District-Kulgam (respondent no.6) was entrusted to enquiry with respect to the conduct of the petitioners’ services on the day of the incident.

2.5 The Enquiry Officer (respondent no.6) served upon the petitioner a detailed charge-sheet to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply pleading not guilty and replied to the entire questionnaire in terms of the charge-sheet served upon them. The Enquiry Officer, however, not feeling satisfied with the reply of the petitioners, submitted his findings t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top