NISHAT AHMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY medium of this writ petition, the order No. 768/89, dated 17 -5 -89 annexure ËœAâ„¢ thereto, dismissing the petitioner from his service is challenged on various grounds. Allegedly, he was so dismissed without any proper inquiry, without any charge -sheet and without giving him any opportunity of leading his defence as provided under law.

(2.) THE petitioner was a constable in the police department and he alongwith some other police personnel were detailed on guard duty, in the S.M.H.S Hospital Srinagar, where one Ahsan Dar, an accused arrested in some case, was admitted for treatment. Allegedly, due to their negligence, he escaped from their custody. The police personnel on his guard were all placed under suspension and an inquiry instituted in the mater, resulting in their dismissal. The petitioner was not aware of the order of his dismissal and he filed a writ petition in the High court, whereupon the respondents produced the order impugned, and he came to know about it for the first time. The court then gave him the liberty to file the present petition challenging the said order.

(3.) IT is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was not on duty at the time of occurrence, as mentioned even in the ËœRoznamchaâ„¢ of 4th April 1989. The charge sheet was not given to him by the competent authority. The mandate of Police rules for conducting the inquiry has not been allegedly followed. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner was arrested soon after the escape of the accused and was kept in an interrogation centre, where he was tortured. During the course of his custody in the interrogation centre, some inquiry was held against him which allegedly was done under coercion and therefore not fair and lawful. It is stated that the petitioner was not allowed to consult any lawyer and nor the prosecution witnesses allowed to be cross -examined. He was not allowed to produce any defence witnesses. The petitioner was allegedly forced to give replies as desired by the enquiry officer. The enquiry report and the inquiry proceedings or the evidence recorded were not supplied to him, thereby depriving him of his right to offer an explanation against the proposed punishment. Allegedly the petitioners case was considered alongwith other four constables jointly, which caused great prejudice to him.