Police Officer's Plea of 'Militant Threats' for 19-Year Absence from Duty Unbecoming of Force: J&K High Court - 2025-09-09

‘Unbecoming of a Police Officer’: J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable Absent for 19 Years

Srinagar, J&K – The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition by a former police constable who challenged his removal from service after a 19-year-long unauthorized absence, ruling that citing "militant threats" as a reason for abandoning duty is "unbecoming of a member of Police force."

The division bench, comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had rejected the plea of Mehraj-ud-Din Khan. The court emphasized that a police official, tasked with protecting citizens, cannot be expected to run away from duty due to threats.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mehraj-ud-Din Khan, joined the J&K Police as a Constable in 1987. In 1990, during the peak of militancy in the region, he went on leave and failed to report back for duty on August 15, 1990. Consequently, he was removed from service on May 6, 1991.

For nearly two decades, Khan remained silent. In 2009, he filed his first representation, which was rejected. This initiated a series of legal challenges, including a writ petition in 2010. In 2016, the High Court directed the authorities to reconsider his case and provide him a personal hearing. Following this, his representation was once again rejected in 2017, a decision later upheld by the CAT in March 2025, leading to the present petition.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Stance: Khan argued that he could not resume his duties due to the "prevalent and alarming security situation" and direct threats to his life from militants. He claimed that the authorities failed to follow Rule 359 of the J&K Police Manual and did not properly consider his appeal as directed by the court in 2016.

Respondent's Stance: The Union Territory of J&K countered that Khan had a poor service record, marked by "habitual absenteeism" and three major punishments in his short three-year tenure. They presented evidence that multiple signals and notices were sent to him through the local police station in 1990 and 1991, urging him to return, but he "turned deaf ears." They argued that his absence occurred when manpower was critically needed to protect citizens.

Court's Decisive Reasoning

The High Court found no merit in the petitioner's claims. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, writing for the bench, highlighted several key points that led to the dismissal of the petition.

The court noted that the petitioner was given a fair personal hearing in 2017 as per the previous court order, during which he failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claim of being threatened by militants. The judgment stated:

"The petitioner, admittedly, was a member of the police force and a member of the police force is not expected to remain absent from duty just because of threats from militants... A police official, who does not join duty just because threat from the militants, cannot be expected to protect the life and property of the citizens of the country."

The bench heavily scrutinized the 19-year delay in approaching the authorities. The judgment observed:

"The petitioner, after remaining absent for nineteen years, for the first time filed representation only in the year 2009. The petitioner has not placed on record any evidence/document to show that in the interregnum he approached the respondents for joining back his duty."

The court also pointed out that the petitioner had effectively admitted his misconduct by arguing that the punishment of removal was "excessive," a claim he raised nearly two decades after abandoning his post.

Final Verdict and Implications

In its concluding remarks, the High Court affirmed the findings of the CAT, stating that the petitioner’s conduct was unbecoming of a police officer. The bench found no reason to interfere with the earlier decisions and dismissed the writ petition.

The judgment serves as a stern reminder of the duties and responsibilities incumbent upon members of a disciplined force, especially in conflict-ridden areas. It underscores that unsubstantiated claims and inordinate delays in seeking legal remedy will not be entertained by the courts.