HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIRAND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

WP(C ) No. 2520/2025

Reserved on: 18.12.2025

Pronounced on: 24.12.2025 Uploaded on: 24.12.2025

Whether the operative part or

Full judgment is pronounced: Full

1.UT of J&K through Principal Secretary to Home Department,

Government of J&K

2.Director General of Police J&K

3.Sr. Superintendent of Police District Kulgam 4 Additional Superintendent of Police Kulgam

….Petitioner(s)

Through: Ms. Nowhabar Khan, AC vice

Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG

Vs

1. SGCT Mohd Rafiq son of Abdul Salam Itoo, resident of Sonigam

District Kulgam

2. Constable Ayish Ahmed Yatoo son of Mohd Ashraf Yatoo resident of

Noor Bagh Srinagar.

….Respondent(s)

Through: Ms Nighat Amin, Adv. vice

Mr. Bhat Fayaz Ahmad, Adv.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1 This writ petition by the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and three others arises from an order and judgment dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench [“the Tribunal”] in OA No.475/2023 titled “Mohd Rafiq Itoo and another vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others”, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the

respondents herein and quashed Order No. 377/2016 dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam, terminating the services of the respondents and Order No. 68/2023 dated 04.04.2023, passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Anantnag.

2 Before we proceed to appreciate the grounds urged by learned counsel for the writ petitioners, it would be appropriate to narrate few essential facts leading to the filing of this appeal.

3. The respondents, respondent No. 1, an SGCT, and respondent No. 2, a Constable were deployed at the residential guard post of a political activist of the National Conference, namely Abdul Rashid Khanday, at Begam, Kulgam. On the intervening night of 7th and 8th September 2016, militants attacked the guard post, overpowered the police personnel, and forcibly snatched their service weapons without facing any resistance from the guard personnel, including the respondents. With regard to the said incident, FIR No.121/2016 was registered at Police Station D.H Pora, Kulgam under Sections 452/392 RPC, 7/25 Arms Act, 03 PEPO and 30 Police Act. The respondents were immediately placed under suspension vide order No. 267 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016. Charge sheets (Fard-e-Ilzam) were served upon the respondents by the Additional SP, Kulgam. The respondents submitted their reply to the chargesheets, giving their version of the incident and explaining the role played by them. It is alleged that without conducting any further inquiry, without recording any witnesses and without affording any opportunity of cross-examination, the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam issued a show- cause notice proposing imposition of penalty vide his communication dated 14.11.2016. This show-cause notice of proposed penalty was also responded to by the respondents. They denied having exhibited any kind of carelessness or cowardice while performing their duties. They reiterated their stand which they had taken in reply to the chargesheets/fard-e-ilzam. They also pleaded for taking a humanitarian view in the matter considering their long service rendered in the Department.

4 The reply submitted by the respondents was considered by the SP Kulgam, who vide his order dated 24.11.2026 (supra), dismissed the respondents from service. It is in these background facts, and claiming that they were innocent and had been dismissed without following due process of law, the respondents filed SWP No. 1950/2016.

4 The said writ petition was resisted by the writ petitioners herein by filing a counter affidavit of the then SP Kulgam. In the counter affidavit, it was the stand of the writ petitioners that by not retaliating or firing a single round and surrendering their weapons to the militants, the respondents and others who were posted at the guard post had exhibited negligence, carelessne