O R D E R

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

The instant writ petition (SWP No.1820 of 2007), having been filed initially before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar in the year 2007, came to be transferred to the CAT, Jammu Bench vide order dated 21.09.2020 and accordingly numbered as T.A.3100/2021. Thereafter when CAT Srinagar Bench was commissioned, the matter was transferred to this Bench.

2. Through the medium of the instant TA, applicant seeks following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of termination/discharge bearing order No.54 of 2006 dated 11.02.2006 passed by the respondent No.3 selection and appointment of the respondent No.5 on the post of helper as contained in Annexure “A” to this writ petition bearing No.CDPO/T/6/61 dated 27.03.2008 passed by the respondent No.3.

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services on the post of constable in the respondent department.

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accord pecuniary and other service benefits to the petitioner including the right to promotion to the next higher grade/post; and

(d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit proper in the attending circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

3. What emerges out of the pleadings in the TA is that the petitioner was appointed as constable in IRP 1st BN, Srinagar by the respondent No.4 in the year 1999. In the year 2001, the petitioner was deputed to work in Operation Group of Jammu and Kashmir Police and was posted to Police District, Awantipora. However, according to the petitioner, he has a right of lien on the post of constable in the said IRP BN.

4. The petitioner challenged the discharge order No.54 of 2006 dated 11.02.2006 issued by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-A) whereof, he has been discharged from services with immediate effect. It has been pleaded in the TA that the order impugned is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional, to the prejudice of the rights and interest of the petitioner and in support of his case, the petitioner has taken following grounds:-

(i) The impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is illegal and unlawful being without jurisdiction. The basic appointment of the petitioner is in IRP Ist BN

(vii) The respondent No.3 was under legal obligation to provide copy of the enquiry report and the material taken on record by the enquiry officer including the statements of the witnesses and give a chance to the petitioner to defend the allegations or the enquiry findings. Since the legal requirement is not done in the case in hand, as such, the termination order passed against the petitioner is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

(viii) There is not an iota of whisper in the termination/discharge order to the fact as to whether the petitioner was charge sheeted at any point of stage or any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner or whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer asserts the enquiry to be based on documentary or oral evidence. Accordingly, the enquiry is without following due process of law, as such, the enquiry report alongwith enquiry proceedings deserve to be quashed.

(ix) The petitioner had absented for three days and for his absence, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to plead innocence and, according to the petitioner, punishment of removal from the services on such alleged minor charge is disproportionate to the guilt.

(x) Second show cause notice after recommendation of the enquiry office was mandatory upon the respondent No.3 to be issued to the petitioner in light of the general principle of law and specific police rules in this behalf. Since, for want of compliance of legal mandate in passing the termina