MUMTAZA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Parvaiz Ahmad, admittedly, appointed as Constable Driver in J&K Police in the year 1996, had remained absent with effect from 20.1.2008 to 07.07.2008 but had resumed duty on 08.07.2008.Departmental enquiry was initiated against him for unauthorized absence. SDPO, Kulgam (Enquiry Officer) submitted the report to the respondent SSP to the effect that the delinquent Driver Constable did not cooperate, therefore, enquiry was completed in ex- parte.The report submitted by him would provide that the period of absence i.e. 20.1.2008 to 7.7.2008 (in all 167 days) be treated as dies- non. The report was not accepted by Senior Superintendent of Police,Kulgam, and de novo enquiry was ordered vide order No.617/2009 dated 16.12.2009 to be conducted by Additional Superintendent of Police, Kulgam.

(2.) Additional Superintendent of Police, Kulgam is stated to have made numerous correspondences but could not procure the presence of delinquent Constable. Even a Constable of DPL, Kulgam was deputed to inform the delinquent to report the office of the enquiry officer. The delinquent Constable even after acknowledging the information did not bother to appear before the enquiry officer. After providing all opportunities to the delinquent Constable, the enquiry officer found no option but to complete the enquiry in ex-parte and submitted his recommendations on 24.8.2010 for discharge of the delinquent Driver Constable.

(3.) On receipt of the enquiry report of the Additional SP (Enquiry Officer), the Disciplinary Authority-SSP, Kulgam, has issued a show cause notice vide No.Estt/Enq/2010-18124-32 dated 01.09.2010 to the effect as to why action warranted under rules be not taken against him.