SURINDER PAUL Vs. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions involve common question of law because what arise for consideration is whether the penalty of reduction to a lower post could be imposed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners of defending themselves after they had denied the charge of dereliction of duty. The admitted facts of the case are that all the petitioners were charged for dereliction of duty in not detecting the theft of Deodar Sleepers loaded in truck Nos. DLI-GB-3192, DLI-GA-4158, JK02D-6817 and JK02B-1701 on 03/09/1990 at Check Post Kunjwani. Articles of charge were served on the petitioners for the aforesaid dereliction of duty. All of them it is admitted replied the charge-sheet denying their negligence. After considering their reply, the Disciplinary Authority it is admitted did not give them any opportunity to defend themselves. On the contrary a notice was issued asking them to show- cause why they should not be demoted from the post held by them for serious dereliction of duty in not detecting the clandestinely loaded Deodar Sleepers in the trucks. Subsequently, vide order dated 28/04/1909 passed by respondent No. 4 all the petitioners were demoted from the post of Forester to the post of Deputy Forester.

(2.) It is this order which the petitioners have challenged on the ground that neither any inquiry was held nor opportunity of hearing afforded to them to prove their innocence.

(3.) The stand of the respondents is that charges were framed and their replies considered before giving them notice to show-cause why they should not be demoted. It was only after considering their reply that the order impugned has been passed. So the petitioners it is further pleaded have been heard before passing the impugned order.