SHAKUNTLA SINGH Vs. U.O.I. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Heard. I have perused the record.

(2.) Petitioner's husband, Ram Parkash Singh, was a member of the Central Reserve, Police Force (CRPF). He was appointed on 04.11.1986. In the year, 1996 he was posted as No. 861550202 INSP/GD at Recruitment Training Centre (RTC), CRPF, Humhama, Srinagar (J & K) from where he was transferred to 32 Bn. by an order bearing Signal No. T -IX -1/01 -EC -I dated 15.05.2001 issued by the Deputy Inspector General (Personnel) RFC Force, CRPF and is said to have been relieved vide Signal/Order dated 17.05.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of transfer, he filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 725/2001, which came to be disposed of on 28.05.2001 with a direction that he shall file a representation before the competent Authority within one week's time and the competent Authority would consider the same within two weeks thereafter. Representation dated 04.06.2001 for cancellation of his transfer from RTC, Srinagar was submitted by the deceased to the Director General, CRPF but the same was turned down vide Order No. T. IX -2/2001 -Pers -II dated 25.06.2001 as being without any merit with observation that he was relieved from RTC, Srinagar prior to passing of the Court order. As the deceased did not report to 32 Bn. CRPF, departmental proceedings for the charge of unauthorised absence from duty and disobeying the orders of Competent Authority was initiated against him. Deceased was alleged not to have taken part in the Departmental Inquiry in spite of notice, the inquiry was conducted ex parte and in the result he was dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 18.03.2004 vide Order No. P -VIII -2/2002 -Estt. -3 dated 18.03.2004 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad. His unauthorised absence from duty from 09.06.2001 to 18.03.2004 was ordered to be treated as 'DIES NON'.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by his dismissal, petitioner's husband filed SWP No. S -650/2005 in this Court to assail the same on various grounds. A learned single Judge of this Court found that proper inquiry had not been conducted and that the petitioner therein was not provided any opportunity to present his case and produce witnesses and therefore, allowed the writ petition vide judgment dated 19.05.2011. Operative part of that judgment needs to be and is culled out: