HAMID-ULLAHN HAJAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a Head constable in police department is aggrieved of adverse remarks purporting to have been recorded in his Character roll by concerned Commandant of JKAP which he seeks to be expunged. The remarks recorded are as follows: The HC has been posted in the Bn from University on his repatriation. Ct. Farid Khan No. 216/Security reported that during his posting in University security, the HC has taken Rs. 10000/ - from him to hushing up an absence case wherein the Ct. has been awarded major punishment. The issue of repayment has brought in my office, by. S.P Mohmd Aslam received Rs. 10000/ - from the HC in cash and was paid to Ct. Paid Khan under proper receipt. Thus it is proved that HC Hamidullah No. 3/5 has been proved guilty of misusing his official position as Coy. Clerk and have taken Rs. 10000/ -which was received in the presence of the officer and handed over to the claimant against receipt.... Sd/ -Commandant JKAP 5th Bn.

(2.) GROUNDS pleaded in support of the prayer are that petitioner has an unblemished career at his credit during which he has undergone many trainings and received many rewards and certificates from his superiors but despite that he has been condemned unheard by the Commandant of JKAP 5th Battalion , i.e. respondent No. 3 where from he was transferred to 9th Battalion under the command of respondent No. 4 to whom his character roll was not sent by respondent No. 3 despite demands due to which he filed an application for transfer of his character roll on 04.07.2003 whereupon the concerned officer recorded the adverse entries aforesaid at his back and without hearing him in any manner whatsoever much less any inquiry, which, besides being violative of the rules tells upon petitioners character also and is liable to be set aside as being malafide and arbitrary.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel and considered the matter. Admittedly the adverse entry complained of by petitioner has been recorded in his character roll by his Commandant who under Police Rules is competent to record such an entry. The only legitimate objection that can be taken, and as a matter of fact has been taken by petitioner, is that it was done without hearing him and thereby in violation of the rules. Before coming to substance of plea it may be appropriate to observe that an adverse entry in the character roll does not amount to punishment in terms of Rule 334 of Police Rules and as such may not necessarily be preceded by an inquiry as envisaged under Rule 359 thereof. In that view the petitioner's plea that a regular inquiry should have been initiated before recording the entry in his character roll does not appear to be well founded.