TAHIRA AKHTER Vs. STATE & ORS.

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:

(2.) 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 0power 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.

(3.) FROM perusal of the above said reproduction, it reveals that the petitioner came to be reinstated and pursuant to such order she resumed her duties. The competent authority -Respondent 4 in categorical terms held that absence of the petitioner was beyond her control and she came to be discharged from service without any justification. Admittedly, no one has questioned the order passed by respondent No.4 and has been acted upon but Respondent No. 2 passed an Order No. 3824 of 2006 dated 07.12.2006 whereby he has set aside the order dated 10.05.2006 passed by respondent No. 4, and ordered for Denovo Inquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has chosen to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court and questioned the same on the averments made in the writ petition.