FAYAZ AHMAD MIR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Fayaz Ahmad Mir, was a recruit constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police, appointed in District Police, Baramulla, to be on probation for a period of three years, vide Order No. 581 of 1991 dated: 11 -07 -1991. While undergoing basic training at Police Training College, Udhampur, petitioner allegedly absented himself unauthorisedly from 07 -04 -1992 and failed to report for duty till 01 -10 -1992. A regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the impugned order dated: 06 -11 -1992 was passed discharging him from service. The discharge order came to be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it was not a discharge simpliciter, but ex -facie stigmatic and punitive, which could not have been passed with out holding a regular enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The regular enquiry though conducted in this case, but without following the procedure as envisaged under rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Rules (hereafter refers to as Police rules).

(2.) RESPONDENTS in their counter pointed out that petitioner was appointed a recruit constable by order dated: 11 -07 -1991 in District Police, Baramulla and deputed to undergo training at PTC, Udhampur alongwith other recruits. But he absented himself from the training with effect from 7th April, 1992 and remained unauthorisedly absent continuously till 01 -10 -1992, resulting into passing of an order of discharge from service on 06 -11 -1992 because of unauthorised absence preceded by a departmental enquiry.

(3.) MR . S.H. Thakur appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of discharge on account of unauthorised absence cast stigma on the petitioner, which is a punishment as contemplated under rule 334 of the Police Rules, therefore, it could not be passed without holding an enquiry, in case it is held and afforded an opportunity of being heard, which though done in this case, but without following the procedure for a regular enquiry in case of a police officer provided in Rule 359 of the Police Rules and according to him, the order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. It is also contended by Mr. Thakur that respondent No. 3, before passing an order of discharge of the petitioner from service, was obliged to observed the principles of natural justice.