STATE OF J&K Vs. ABDUL SAMAD TANTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 23.05.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that once the writ petitioner -respondent has been exonerated from the charges leveled against him then the interregnum period from the date of termination to that of reinstatement has to be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes. The order of the appellant directing that the non working period was to be considered as dies -non has been set aside. Mr. Margray, learned senior Additional Advocate General has argued that a perusal of the enquiry report would show that despite exoneration of the charges, the writ petitioner -respondent has been warned to be careful in future and, therefore, it would not amount to complete exoneration so as to conclude like the learned Single Judge that the whole period has to be considered as the one spent on duty.

(2.) WE have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned State counsel and have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the same. It has come on record that the writ petitioner -respondent was working as Constable in District Baramulla in the year 1987. He alleged to have enticed away legally wedded wife of one Ghulam Mustaffa Khan. On the complaint made by Mr. Khan, the writ petitioner -respondent was placed under suspension which led to holding of a preliminary enquiry. It was found in the preliminary enquiry that Mst. Sageera was not the wife of the writ petitioner -respondent although he claimed that she was his legally wedded wife for the last three years. Eventually, Mr. Khan (husband of Mst. Sageera) succeeded in obtaining a warrant under Section 100 Cr.PC from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Baramulla and recovered custody of his wife in the presence of the writ petitioner -respondent. Later on a formal enquiry was ordered to be initiated against the writ petitioner -respondent and his services were terminated vide order dated 08.06.1987. The writ petitioner -respondent challenged the aforesaid order by filing SWP No. 968/1987 which was allowed on 19.12.2007. The order of his termination was set aside with liberty to the appellant to proceed afresh in the matter and hold an enquiry in accordance with the rules.