Discharge of police personnel without inquiry violates natural justice and mandatory administrative procedures.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

The writ petition (SWP No.711 of 2019), having been filed initially before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the year 2019, came to be transferred to the CAT, Jammu Bench vide order dated 04.08.2020 and accordingly numbered as T.A.6590/2020. Thereafter when CAT Srinagar Bench was commissioned, the matter was transferred to this Bench. The case was first listed before this Bench of CAT on 07.12.2021.

2. Through the medium of instant TA, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) By issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 21/10/2016 passed by Respondent No.4 be quashed; and (ii) By issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the Respondents be directed to take back the petitioner in service and to pay him all the service benefits including salary, increments and arrears of any pay due to him.

(iii) The Hon’ble court may pass any other order or direction which it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts, as stem out of the pleadings made in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in J&K Police in the year 2011 vide order No.1162 of 2011 dated 21.05.2011 under belt No.3321/S EXK-119026 and he was sent for Training Course on 17.02.2016. According to the petitioner, while he was performing his duties fell ill and when his health got deteriorated he rushed to home for receiving treatment. He accordingly applied for leave from time to time as he remained under treatment of the doctor for a pretty long time and had to be hospitalized a number of times. His parents, who are in advance stage and often remain bed ridden, also had to be hospitalized for treatment during the said period.

4. The petitioner submitted that after recovery from ailment, he went to resume his duties at his previous place of posting in July 2016 but he was not allowed to do so. He continuously submitted applications in the office for grant of permission to resume his duties back but he was not permitted and order of discharge from service bearing No.1645 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016 was purportedly issued by respondent No.4 without providing any opportunity of being heard and to justify himself even after trying numerous times.

5. The petitioner submits that the order dated 21.10.2016 is illegal, improper and unconstitutional, therefore, he challenges the same on the following grounds:-

(i) The respondent No.4 issued the impugned order dated 21.10.2016 without holding any inquiry to the notice and knowledge of the petitioner. Neither any charge sheet nor any show cause has ever been issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order and falsely stated that notices were issued through SHO P/S Khanyar for resuming his duties rendering the same liable to be set aside.

(ii) Respondent No 4 did not bother to send any notice to the petitioner for causing appearance before him either through post or through special messenger. He has also not sent any police personnel to the residence of the petitioner to know about his whereabouts and health condition. Since he was not informed by the respondents that his leave has not been sanctioned, he was of the bonafide belief that his leave has been sanctioned. After his discharge from hospital and after recovery of his parents, the petitioner approached respondent No.4 for joining his duties but he was not allowed. Since no enquiry has been conducted by the respondents, the order impugned dated 21.10.2016 being bad in law as well as the J&K police rules, is liable to be set aside.

(iii) The respondent No.04 has passed the order impugned in violation of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of being heard. Even the copy of the order Impugned has not been supplied to the petitioner to file representation against the impugned order, as such same is no