(1.) Through the instant Letters Patent appeal, the State has questioned the judgement/order of learned Single Judge dated 23rd of March, 2005 rendered in SWP No. 1091 of 1995, whereby quashing the order No. 294 of 1990 dated 24-5-1990, terminating the services of the respondent-writ petitioner (for short 'petitioner') on the ground of unauthorized absence from District Police Lines, Anantnag with effect from 6-12-1989.
(2.) The petitioner was selected as Constable in year 1987 and allotted number 773/A. He was deputed in District Police Lines, Anantnag when on 6-12-1989, he absented himself. When he did not turn up for a considerable period, he was served with notice by appellant No. 3 asking him to resume to duties upto 7-5-1990, and his failure to report would call for his discharge from service. Despite that he did not resume to his duties upto 24-5-1990 on which date appellant No. 3 passed the order of removing him from the service. The said order reads thus:
(3.) The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of removal from service through the medium of SWP No. 1091 of 1995 mainly on the ground that his services were terminated without holding a regular enquiry as envisaged under the rules governing the field. The writ petition came to be allowed along with bunch of other writ petitions of the similar nature and the order challenged by the petitioner was quashed by the learned Single Judge, holding that it has been passed without following the due procedure inasmuch as no enquiry was held. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that in case the authority concerned had felt that it was not practicable to hold an enquiry due to the absence, non-cooperation or hostile attitude of the petitioner, they should have exercised a power under rule 359(ii)(2)(b) of J&K Police Manual (for short 'Police Rules'), which empowers the authority to dispense with the enquiry on the ground of impracticability. The State being aggrieved of the said judgement is now before us through the appeal on hand.