TAHIRA AKHTER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case on hand has a chequered history. The Petitioner has become victim of Respondents for no fault of her. The Petitioner submits that she came to be appointed as a Constable in the Respondent-Department on 4th of November, 1993 and was nominated for undergoing basic recruitment training course which was later on cancelled. Thereafter on 16th of May, 2000, she was again deputed to undergo the basic recruitment training course which she could not attend because she fell ill and was advised by the Police Medical Officer, Police Hospital, Anantnag, to have a complete bed rest for four days which constrained her to approach to Respondent No. 6 for grant of four days casual leave in her favour, who in turn forwarded the same to Respondent No. 5 on the same day. Respondent No. 5 without any inquiry and show cause notice discharged the Petitioner from services with effect from 17th of May, 2000 vide Order No. 388/2000 dated 25.05.2000. The Petitioner invoked the appellate jurisdiction by way of filing an appeal which was rejected. Subsequently, she filed second appeal which too got the same fate. Ultimately, she approached this Court by filing a writ petition (SWP No. 1270/2002), questioning therein the order of discharge and orders passed by the appellate court passed against her favour. The writ Court while allowing the writ petition held, operative part of which may be noticed: Under the rule a Police Official can be discharged from service on the ground that he/she is unlikely to prove an efficient officer within a period of three years from the date of his/her enrolment. The power given to a Sr. Superintendent of Police to discharge an police official under the said rule is required to be exercised within three years of the enrolment of the officer. The power cannot be exercised beyond the period of three years. Admittedly the Petitioner has been appointed in the year 1993 as such the Sr. Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to discharge the Petitioner from services by exercising the powers under the rule. The order impugned is therefore, clearly in violation of the police rules as such cannot sustain. The order is hereby set aside and the petition is allowed. Order accordingly.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 upon scrutiny of the judgment aforementioned passed Order No. 42 of 2006 dated 02.03.2006, whereby the Petitioner came to be reinstated and fresh departmental inquiry came to be ordered. Additional Superintendent of Police, Anantnag (for short ASP) was appointed as an inquiry officer. During the inquiry, the Petitioner was placed under suspension till finalization of the inquiry. Inquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry submits its finding. Agreeing with the inquiry report, Respondent No. 4 after examining the record of the departmental inquiry and finding of the ASP Anantnag (Inquiry Officer) passed Order No. 102 of 2006 dated 10.05.2006. It is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the order, which reads as follows: d. That keeping in view the record available on file the delinquent official has not absented herself to avoid the BRTC willfully. The documents submitted by the lady Constable Tahira Akhter clearly establishes a prima facie case in her favour and her absence was because of the circumstances which were beyond her control as is evident from the records.

(3.) In view of the above observations it is hereby ordered that: