BASHIR AHMED Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order No. 504 of 2013 dtd. 3/8/2013 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been disengaged from the roll of Special Police Officers (SPOs) of the District Ramban. A writ of mandamus has also been sought by the petitioner for his appointment as constable with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. The petitioner has further sought a writ of prohibition thereby asking the respondents not to take note of the judgment dtd. 6/6/2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was engaged as Special Police Officer (SPO) in terms of Police Headquarter Order No. 743 of 2011 dtd. 24/2/2011. Whereafter he continued to discharge his functions honestly in a dedicated and faithful manner. It is submitted that an FIR came to be registered against the petitioner, whereafter challan was presented again him and the respondents without holding any enquiry and without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, disengaged/terminated his service vide impugned order dtd. 3/8/2013. It is submitted that despite the petitioner having made many representations to the respondents, the aforesaid order of disengagement has not been withdrawn by the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner goes on to submit that FIR No. 58/2013 for offences under Ss. 336, 147, 427 RPC came to be lodged against him and challan was filed against him that was decided by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gool vide his judgment dtd. 6/6/2018. While convicting the petitioner and co-accused, the learned Magistrate extended benefit of probation to the accused. It has been contended that the petitioner has not committed any offence and the case lodged against him is absolutely false. According to the petitioner, after expiry of three years during which period he was directed to observe good conduct as per the judgment of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents for recalling of the impugned order but to no effect. It has been submitted that co-accused, who are similarly situated with the petitioner, have been reinstated in their respective jobs but the petitioner continues to be without any job.