GH HASSAN RATHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMING to have been appointed as constables in respondent/Police Department vide order No. 102 of 1987 dated: 15.2.1987, and undergone requisite training whereafter the petitioner maintains that he joined regular service. On 24.10.1989 he proceeded on leave but due to ill -health could not resume duty for a couple of months after the leave expired, till he got medically fit and reported for duty in 1990, but was not allowed to join and instead informed that his services had been dispensed with. Since no dismissal or termination order had been served upon him he instituted a petition in this court being SWP No. 472/2000 which was disposed of on 4.8.2000 with a direction to respondents to provide a copy of termination order to petitioner allowing him liberty to him for challenge the same, and have the present petition to impugn the termination order No. 1734 of 1998 dated: 12. 12.1990 on the grounds that petitioner has been removed from service without any inquiry or opportunity of being heard, nor have the grounds of impugned termination order ever been supplied to him as was legally required to be done particularly because termination order would take effect only after it is communicated to petitioner, as respondents had never made it known as to why it was not practical for them to hold inquiry before passing impugned termination order against petitioner which suggests that the whole exercise is malafide. Accordingly the petitioner seeks quashment of the said order alongwith a direction to respondents for allowing him to rejoin his duties.

(2.) IN their reply the respondents while pleading that petitioner had no cause to maintain the writ petition, even though being based on mixed questions of fact and law and having been instituted after a delay of around a decade, particularly while the post against which petitioner was working has also been filled up through regular selection process after petitioner abandoned his services during the crucial period of turmoil. It is further pleaded that petitioner was employed in February 1987 as constable and it was during his probation period that he remained absent from 28.10.1989 and never resumed duties thereafter, and that being so no inquiry was required for his termination under police rules. The respondents have also disclosed that petitioner had associated himself with militancy related activities and arrested on 27.5.1996 by SOG, with arms and ammunition including one AK rifle, four magazines, one pistol and thirty rounds having been recovered from him, resulting in registration of a case under FIR No. 176 of 1996 under section 7/25 I.A. Act against him and his detention under order No. DNMS/PSA/254/96 dated: 27.6.1996. In para -wise reply the respondents have denied ail the assertions made by petitioner and maintained that in view of petitioners conduct and circumstances attending his absence from duty no inquiry was required in the matter and 3rd respondent was completely within his powers to issue the impugned order which in the circumstances of the case is well founded in law. During verbal submissions that respondents counsel has further argued that after his arrest the petitioner admitted having crossed LOC and receiving training there whereafter he returned back and got involved in militancy related activities. After continuing as such for around a decade so sought re -entry into service in 2000 which in given circumstances he could not ask for.

(3.) IN his rejoinder petitioner has further pleaded that most of the pleas set up by respondents in the reply were factually incorrect and as a matter of fact he never crossed the LOC or received training nor were any arms recovered from him. Admitting having been detained under P.S. Act, the petitioner has further maintained that his detention was quashed by this court on 22. 7. 1997 vide judgment passed in HCP No. 95 of 19976 and as such petitioners removal from service was totally illegal as having been ordered without any inquiry whatsoever. During course of arguments petitioners counsel has further elucidated the pleas taken by him in the original writ petition.