Judicial review in disciplinary matters is supervisory; no interference absent procedural violation causing prejudice, delay bars relief, penalty proportionate.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.3120/2015 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.8426/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: -

“It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a writ of certiorari and quash the orders impugned passed by respondents No.2 to 4;

And Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the to grant forfeited increments respondents /promotion;

And Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -

a) The applicant, Meshur Ali, is a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and a citizen of India, entitled to the protection of fundamental, legal, and statutory rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the laws governing public service. He is serving in the Jammu & Kashmir Police Department as a Constable and asserts that throughout his service career he has maintained good conduct and discipline, without any deliberate act amounting to misconduct.

b) It is pleaded that during the relevant period, the applicant was posted at Police Station Billawar. On 06.09.2011, one Showkat Ali S/o Mohd. Tufail R/o Kindli was arrested in FIR No. 108/2011 registered under Section 379 RPC. During interrogation, the accused allegedly made a disclosure regarding the concealment of a stolen motorcycle, pursuant to which the applicant, along with other police personnel, was deputed for its recovery.

c) According to the applicant, a Splendor motorcycle was found abandoned on Billawar–Sukrala Road. Since the applicant did not know how to drive, he allegedly brought the motorcycle on foot and handed it over to the concerned MASI in the presence of other police officials. It is claimed that although the recovery was initially appreciated, the applicant was subsequently malafidely implicated and accused of being in possession of stolen property, despite having no criminal intent or misconduct.

d) Vide Order No. 890 of 2011 dated 06.09.2011 issued by the DPO Kathua, a departmental enquiry was ordered against the applicant and entrusted to Dy. Superintendent of Police, DAR, DPL Kathua. The applicant alleges that the enquiry was conducted in haste and in complete disregard of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 359 of the Police Rules.

e) It is further pleaded that the Enquiry Officer concluded the proceedings without supplying relevant documents, enquiry report, or statements relied upon, thereby depriving the applicant of a fair opportunity to defend himself. On the basis of such allegedly defective enquiry, the respondent No. 4 accepted the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and vide Order No. 293 of 2012 dated 04.04.2012 ordered forfeiture of two annual increments of the applicant for a period of two years.

f) Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu Range (respondent No. 3), which came to be dismissed vide Order No. 345 of 2012 dated 11.08.2012. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone (respondent No. 2), but the same was also rejected on technical grounds vide Order dated 24.08.2015.

g) The applicant has challenged the aforesaid orders primarily on the grounds that the enquiry was conducted in viola