Back
Upholds Termination of Constable Over and
In a significant ruling regarding the termination of , the of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the dismissal of a () Constable. Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, affirmed that the force acted within its legal rights by terminating the petitioner's services during his probation due to and the non-disclosure of a .
Case Background
The petition was originally filed by Shabir Ahmad Deedad, who was appointed as a Constable (GD) in the in . Following a in , the constable failed to report for duty on , as required. His services were subsequently terminated on , following the issuance of a formal notice. During the , Deedad passed away, and his wife, Nargis Begum, was substituted as the petitioner to continue the legal challenge.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner contended that the absence was not willful but necessitated by an attack on his residence by militants on , which resulted in injuries to his father. The petitioner further argued that his subsequent acquittal in FIR No. 157/2003 (registered at ) should have entitled him to .
Conversely, the argued that the petitioner remained absent without authorization despite . Furthermore, the respondents maintained that the petitioner’s appointment was subject to the condition that no criminal cases be pending against him at the time of recruitment, a condition the petitioner had breached by failing to disclose the pending challan in the 2003 FIR.
Legal Analysis
The Court’s analysis centered on the governing . Under Rule 16 of the Rules, 1955, and , the is empowered to terminate a temporary employee during probation by providing one month's notice.
The Court observed that the petitioner had received the notice of termination and failed to rejoin his duties, thereby legitimizing the respondents' decision. Crucially, the Court treated the petitioner's claim regarding the militant attack with skepticism. Given that the report concerning the attack was lodged more than a year after the incident, the Court concluded that the evidence was manufactured.
Key Observations
Justice Sanjay Dhar highlighted the lack of contemporaneous evidence regarding the alleged attack:
*
"The defence of the petitioner that he could not attend duties due to the reason that his house was attacked by the militants, also appears to be an afterthought because the documents placed on record in this behalf appear to have been manufactured with a view to create a defence."
*
"Once the original petitioner, upon receipt of notice of termination dated
did not rejoin his duties within the period of notice, the respondents were well within their rights and competence to terminate his services without assigning any reason."
*
"From the sequence of events, it can safely be inferred that the case set up by the petitioner is nothing but an afterthought which deserves to be rejected."
Court's Decision
The dismissed the , ruling that the termination was procedurally sound and justified. The judgment clarifies that for probationary staff, failure to maintain conduct or adhere to the terms of appointment—including the non-disclosure of —provides sufficient grounds for termination. The decision reaffirms the broad discretion afforded to in enforcing discipline among probationary personnel, ensuring that internal service rules are strictly upheld.
