SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of the order No. 1443 of 2000 dated 12.10.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu (respondent No. 4) whereby removing the appellant (for short writ petitioner) as Constable from the rolls of District Jammu, he filed SWP No. 1594 of 2001 seeking quashment of the said order, which now stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge Vide judgement dated 7th of March, 2006. Hence the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) The writ petitioner was a probationer and discharged under Rule 137 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Police Rules') on the ground that after he was appointed as Constable in Police Department in 1999, he had to proceed for basic training course along with other recruits, but he willfully absented himself from District Police Line, Jammu, as such, avoided the basic training course. Ultimately, Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 4) passed the order of his removal from the rolls with effect from the date he absented himself unauthorizedly i.e. 18-08-2000.

(3.) The main thrust of argument on behalf of the writ petitioner before the learned writ court was that absence being the ground of discharge, necessarily required an enquiry under Rule 359 of the Police Rules and omission on the part of the respondents to hold an enquiry has rendered the order of termination illegal. The learned Writ Court did not find force in the submissions and while referring to Rule 359(10) of the Police Rules dismissed the writ petition, holding that the order was neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature and Rule 187 of Police Rules supports the action of discharge. The learned Writ Court also relied upon the decision of Apex Court handed down in case State of Punjab & ors v. Sukhwinder Singh, 2005 AIR(SCW) 3477.