Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3000
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M.S. Latif, Prasant Kumar, JJ
Nazir Ahmed Bhat – Appellant
Versus
Home Department – Respondent
O.A./330/2022
Mr. Z.A.Qureshi, Sr. Advocate; with Ms. Rehana Fayaz. Mr. Waseem Gul, GA
The court emphasized that adherence to procedural rules in departmental enquiries is essential to uphold the principles of natural justice, and failure to do so invalidates the proceedings.
Headnote:(A) J&K Police Manual - Rules 339 and 359 - Termination of service - The applicant challenged the removal from service due to alleged procedural violations during the departmental enquiry, including lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and failure to provide the enquiry report - The court found that the enquiry did not adhere to the mandated procedures, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 10, 12, 14)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent officer be provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, including access to evidence and the right to cross-examine witnesses. (Paras 8, 10)
(C) Departmental Enquiry - The court emphasized that a departmental enquiry must be conducted in accordance with established rules, and failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was removed from service following a departmental enquiry related to a security incident where arms were snatched. The applicant claimed the enquiry was flawed due to procedural violations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the enquiry did not comply with the required procedures and set aside the removal order, allowing for a fresh enquiry to be conducted.
Issues: The main issues included whether the enquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with the rules, and whether the applicant was given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to follow the prescribed procedures in the departmental enquiry constituted a violation of natural justice, necessitating the quashing of the removal order.
Result: The removal order and the appeal dismissal were set aside, allowing for a fresh enquiry.
ORDER
M.S.Latif, Member (Judl.) :-
Through the medium of this OA the applicant has prayed for grant of following relief:-
“8(i) Quash the order no. 371 of 2020 dated 19.09.2020 issued by Inspector General of Police Armed/IRP Kashmir, Srinagar, by which in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 339 of J&K Police Manual, the applicant was removed from the services with immediate effect and
(ii) The order no. 121 of 2022 dated 11.02.2022 by which the appeal of the applicant was dismissed and confirming the order dated 19.09.2020 be also quashed and in consequent thereto
(iii) The applicant be treated to have been on duty as if the order of termination was never passed and applicant be granted all consequential benefits attached to the post including salary, increment, promotion, etc.
(iv) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Case of the applicant, as projected in the OA, is as under:-
2.1 Applicant was deployed at Gori Shanker Temple, Goripora Rawalpora among others for security of the said temple. On 25.04.2018 during evening hours, some unknown gunmen attacked the said guard post, barged into the guard room and snatched the Arms/Ammunitions allotted to the deployed guard personnel including the applicant. Acting upon the information a case FIR No.97 of 2018 dated 25.04.2018, U/s 457, 392 RPC 7/27 Arms act and 30-PEPO was registered in P/s Budgam.
2.2 Consequent to the aforesaid incident the applicant along with other officials was placed under suspension vide order No. 473 of 2018 dated 26.04.2018 and one Mr. Ashfaq Alam, Dy.SP (C.C.B.Coy) was directed to hold a departmental enquiry under rules and furnish th detailed report to the office of Commandant JKAP 13 Bn. Subsequently, appointment of aforesaid Dy. SP as enquiry officer was withdrawn by Addl. Director General of Police, Armed, J&K Srinagar vide order No. 433 of 2018 dated 23.05.2018 and departmental th enquiry was entrusted to Commandant JKAP-12 Bn against applicant and rest of the Guards.
2.3 It is alleged by the applicant that after the respondent no.5 was appointed as Enquiry Officer, he recorded some evidence in absence of the applicant and other Guards who were placed under suspension and thereafter framed the charges against the applicant on 08.09.2018. The reply to the charge was submitted by the applicant whereby he denied the charges as not being framed in accordance with the facts and circumstances (Annexure-VII).
2.4 After two years of service of charge sheet dated 08.09.2018, the Inspector General of Police issued a show cause notice on 07.09.2020 (Annexure-VIII) by exercising his powers vested in him under Rule 359(11)(2) of J&K Police Manual calling upon the applicant as to why he should not be removed from the service on the grounds as mentioned in the notice. It is stated in the OA that respondent no.4 did not provide the enquiry report, recommendation or the documents on the basis of which the grounds for show cause were relied upon.
2.5 On 19.09.2020 vide order no. 371 of 2020 (Annexure-I) Inspector General of Police, Armed/IRP Kashmir, passed a detailed order removing the applicant and other three officials from the service with immediate effect by invoking the powers under Rule 339 of the J&K Police Manual. It was further ordered that the finding of the enquiry officer shall form part of the order. It is averred in the OA that even the finding of the enquiry officer was not provided to the applicant.
2.6 The applicant feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, which was passed without following the principles of natural justice, mandate of Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules coupled with Rule 339 of J&K Police Manual, preferred a review petition. However, the same was rejected vide order no. 910 of 2020 dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure-X). Thereafter, the applicant preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed vide order no. 121 of 2022, dated 11.02.2022 (Annexure-II). 2.7 In su
