Back
Police Constable's Dismissal Upheld, Severed by J&K High Court in Embezzlement Case
In a significant ruling on disciplinary proceedings, the restored the dismissal of a Head Constable who was found to have embezzled over ₹90 lakh from the State Treasury, while holding that the of the dismissal order can be severed. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani allowed an filed by the , setting aside a 2011 writ court order that had quashed the dismissal.
The Case Unfolds
The respondent, Abdul Sattar Lone, was posted as Head Constable/Cashier in the 8th Battalion, . In , he allegedly manipulated an arrear bill and drew over ₹90 lakh from the in Srinagar. The registered FIR No.46/2005 under . Lone was arrested on , suspended the day prior, and released on bail on . Instead of reporting back to battalion headquarters, he remained absent. The department issued multiple notices—through police stations and special messengers—but Lone failed to comply. A departmental inquiry was initiated specifically for (the embezzlement inquiry was stayed by an earlier ). Lone again approached the court, obtaining an on the attendance notices, but the was dismissed in . Despite this, he did not report for duty. The inquiry officer concluded the proceedings , and the Commandant dismissed him from service on , with from .
or Deliberate Defiance?
Lone challenged the dismissal on multiple grounds: , non-compliance with , , and the impermissible . The writ court allowed his petition, holding that the inquiry had proceeded during the subsistence of an . The State appealed.
The High Court rejected the respondent's contentions. It noted that Lone had been served with several notices and was fully aware of the inquiry.
"It is not the case of the respondent that he did not receive any notice requiring him to attend the office,"
the court observed. On the
plea, the court found that the allowance had been paid while he was in custody but could not be released later because he failed to hand over charge.
"Acceding to the argument ... would be tantamount to giving the benefit to the respondent of his own wrong, which is not permissible in law,"
the bench held. Regarding Rule 359, the court stated that the
was "never disputed" and no evidence was required to prove it, so there was no breach of
.
Severing the Invalid
The respondent succeeded on one point: the order of dismissal could not operate retrospectively. The court examined the
and found
"no specific provision authorising the
to impose the penalty of dismissal from a retrospective date."
However, relying on the
's decision in
R. Jeevaratnam v. The State of Madras
(1966), the High Court held that the retrospective portion is . The dismissal order remains valid from the date it was passed——while the period from to must be treated as and dealt with separately under applicable rules.
Key Observations
-
"An order of dismissal must take effect only from the date of the order. would require specific authority in the statute or applicable service rules."
-
"The retrospective part is and the order can be held valid from the date of the order of dismissal."
-
"It is not a case where the respondent was ever deprived of an . It is a case where the respondent himself assumed that during his suspension ... he was neither obliged to attend the office or hand over the charge nor was he liable to appear before the Enquiry Officer to defend the charge."
-
"The was never disputed by the respondent and, therefore, no evidence, documentary or oral, was required to determine this aspect."
The Final Order
The Division Bench allowed the State's appeal, set aside the writ court judgment, and dismissed Lone's . The dismissal order is upheld as valid from . The authorities are permitted to treat the earlier period as and to take appropriate action under the rules. The ruling reaffirms that disciplinary authorities cannot impose retrospective penalties without explicit statutory backing, but also that a cannot avoid proceedings by taking a .
