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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14122

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Durga Parsad – Appellant
Versus
Home Department – Respondent
T.A./180/2025



##PAGE1##

:: 1 :: TA 180/2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU

(RESERVED)

Hearing through video conferencing

Transfer Application No. 180/2025

Reserved on: - 08.09.2025

Pronounced on: - 24.12.2025

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)

Durga Parsad, Age 58 years, S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal, R/o Railway Line,

Bagga Marh Teshil and P.O.R.S Pura, District Jammu.

…Petitioner

(Advocate: - Mr. Rahul Pant, Ld. Sr. Advocate)

Versus

1. State of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Government,

Home Department, Jammu and Kashmir Government, Civil

Secretariat, Jammu.

2. Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir State Police

Headquarters, Gulshan Ground, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

3. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Police Headquarters

Samba.

…Respondents

(Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thapa, Ld. AAG)

HARSHIT Digitally signed

by HARSHIT

YADAV

YADAV

##PAGE2##

:: 2 :: TA 180/2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.2198/2016 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court

of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A

No.180/2025 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking

following relief: -

a) “Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari

quashing Order No:383 of 2008 dated 21" August, 2008 passed

by the Respondent No.3 thereby removing the petitioner from

service;

With a further direction in the nature of mandamus

commanding the respondents to grant all consequential benefits

to the petitioner including the pension;

b) 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 granted in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondent along with cost of the petition.

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

as follows: -

c) The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Executive

Wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police in the year 1978 and,

HARSHIT Digitally signed

by HARSHIT

YADAV

YADAV

##PAGE3##

:: 3 :: TA 180/2025

during the course of his service, earned promotion to the rank

of Selection Grade Constable. He was initially borne on the

District Jammu cadre and continued to serve at various places

within the district after successfully completing his basic

training at the Police Academy. Upon the creation of District

Samba, the petitioner came to be allotted to the District Cadre

Samba.

d) While in service, the petitioner was deputed to undergo the pre-

promotion course for elevation to the post of Head Constable at

the Sher-i-Kashmir Police Academy, Udhampur. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that during this period he

developed a serious psychiatric disorder, which progressively

impaired his mental faculties and rendered him disoriented and

incapable of resuming duties or understanding the

consequences of his actions. According to the petitioner, his

family members took him to various doctors and medical

practitioners, including treatment outside the State, but his

condition did not improve for a considerable length of time.

HARSHIT Digitally signed

by HARSHIT

YADAV

YADAV

##PAGE4##

:: 4 :: TA 180/2025

Medical records evidencing such treatment were placed on

record along with the pleadings.

e) It is pleaded that during the subsistence of this psychiatric

illness, the petitioner could not report back to his place of

posting at District Police Lines, Samba. While the petitioner

was still under treatment and allegedly not in a sound mental

state, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba (respondent

no.3), passed Order No. 383 of 2008 dated 21.08.2008,

removing the petitioner from service on the ground of

continuous unauthorized absence exceeding fourteen months.

f) The petitioner asserts that the impugned order of removal was

passed ex parte, without holding any regular departmental

enquiry, without framing of charges, and without affording him

any reasonable opportunity of being heard or of submitting his

defence. It is specifically pl

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