NARESH KUMAR Vs. COMMANDANT JKAP IV BN (SECURITY)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited as Constable in JKAP, 13th Bn on 30 -8 -1989. He was transferred to the Unit vide APHP order No. 360 dated 30 -8 -1989 and was undergoing basic RTC at APTC, Kathua. The petitioner, however, absented unauthorizedly during training from 27th September, 1990. He did not rejoin his duty till 14 -11 -1990. Vide order No. 697 of 1989 dated 12 -12 -1989, petitioner was struck off from the roll of the Training Centre by the Commandant. It was on 14 -11 -1990, the petitioner appeared before the Commandant, JKAP IV Bn, Srinagar and was permitted to rejoin on 14 -11 -1990 when explained his absence on account of acute disease with which he was suffering. The petitioner along with colleagues was relieved from the Unit on 28 -12 -1990 and again directed to report to Commandant 13th Bn, Kathua to undergo basic RTC, where he never reported for training. The petitioner, therefore, unauthorizedly absented from 28 -12 -1990 and did not report for training in APHQ, Kathua, where he was deputed to undergo basic RTC. Vide Signal No. 4686 -89 dated 14 -3 -1991, the petitioner was directed through concerned Police Station to resume his duties immediately failing with he will be removed from service. Despite intimation to the petitioner to resume the duties, as reported back by SHO, Police Station, vide Signal No. 22/PP dated 20 -3 -1991, he did not care to resume the duties till date and thereby absented himself unauthorizedly for 130 days. Therefore, vide order No. 475 dated 6th May, 1991 issued by Commandant, JKAP IV Bn., Channi Himmat, Jammu, the petitioner was removed from service, as unauthorized absence of the recruit Constable amounted to gross mis -conduct and indiscipline and loss of appointment contemplated under Article 128 of J&K Civil Services Regulations and Rules 208 (9) of J&K Police Manual. It is this order of removal of the petitioner from the service, which became the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(2.) THE stand of the respondents in their demurrer filed to the writ petition is that the petitioner was only recruit Constable on probation and had been removed from service because of his unauthorized absence from duty for a space of 130 days. It is further stated that despite notice to resume duties, which the petitioner received and failed to resume, has occasioned in his removal from service. That the recruit Constable was on probation and surrendered his employment by remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty/the basic Training Course twice from the Armed Police Training Centre, Kathua.

(3.) HEARD Mr. C.M. Gupta, leaned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. K.S. Johal, Additional Advocate General, representing the respondents, in extenso. I have also perused the record meticulously.