PREM NATH Vs. COMMANDANT POLICE TRAINING SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition seeks to quash the orders No. 222 and 223 of 1971 dated 5th of October 1971 passed by the respondent against the petitioner whereby the annual increments of the petitioner for one year and three years respectively have been withheld. The charges against the petitioner were; (1) that on 8 -7 -71 he proceeded on 2 days casual leave but reported back on 11 -6 -71. He remained on unauthorised leave for one month and in this way he reported for duty on 11 -7 -71. He on 24 -5 -71 submitted an application direct to the Inspector General of Police over the head of the respondent which contained false allegations against the respondent; (2) that on 28 -8 -71 the petitioner absented himself from duty at 6.30 hrs. and for 1.52 hour stayed out without permission. On the same day he again absented himself unauthorisedly at 1230 hrs and reported back at 1430 hrs. An enquiry was therefore ordered to be held against the conduct of the petitioner and the Asstt. Commandant was entrusted with the enquiry. The Assistant Commandant summoned the petitioner and after holding enquiry in the case submitted his report making therein recommendations for the proposed punishment to the petitioner. The respondent after considering the report of the first charge ordered the stoppage of increment of the petitioner for a period of three years (vide impugned Order No. 223 of 1971). He also considered the report of the enquiry officer as regards the second charge and passed the impugned order of stoppage of one year increment (vide order No. 222 dated 5 -10 -71). The petitioner has challenged the vires of these orders on the ground that the enquiry was held by an unauthorised officer Asstt. Commandant who could not have been entrusted with the enquiry under Rule 359(1) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual of 1960; (2) that no enquiry was held as laid down in Rule 359 and rule 360 of the Rules; (3) that no opportunity to make representation much less an adequate one was given to the petitioner; (4) that the petitioner was not provided at all any opportunity to lead his defence evidence in support of his pleas; (5) that there has been non -observance of the provisions of R. 35 of the J&K Civil 1 Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1956 in as much as the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of making a representation against report of the enquiry officer and the proposed 1 punishment. No notice was given to the petitioner in regard to the substance of the report of the enquiry and also the punishment proposed to be imposed in the case.

(2.) IN his reply affidavit Shri Veeramna IPS Commandant (Principal Police Training School) Udhampur has sworn to the following facts: -

(3.) IT is admitted that the petitioner proceeded on two days causal leave on 8 -6 -71 but it is submitted that he remained on unauthorised j leave of absence for 32 days. On 24 -5 -71 the petitioner submitted an application direct to the Inspector General of Police without moving j the same through proper channel. In the said application the petitioner had made unfounded and false allegations against his superior officer. Accordingly the deponent ordered the Assistant Commandant J&K Police Training School to hold enquiry against the conduct of the petitioner. On 23 -7 -1971 the Assistant Commandant summoned the petitioner; before him and read over to him The summary of allegations (vide annexure RA) against him. The petitioner did not admit the guilt. Copies of medical report and that of the daily diary report were supplied to him. The petitioner did not challanged these documents. He submitted his explanation to these charges on 30 -7 -1971. There was another charge against the petitioner that he had remained absent from duty for 1.52 hours without permission on 28 -7 -71. On the same day he again absented himself from duty at 1230 for two hours. An enquiry into this matter was also ordered. The summary of allegations (vide annexure D) were read over to the petitioner who did not admit the guilt. He was supplied the extracts of daily diary which constituted the evidence of his unauthorised absence. The petitioner did not challenge the documents. He was formerly charged on 8 -9 -71. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge. After considering the two charges, the evidence on record, the explanations of the petitioner the Assistant Commandant submitted his report. This report was considered by the respondent who agreed with the findings arrived at and also with the recommendations of the proposed punishment. Accordingly impugned order 222 and 223 of even date were passed. It is denied that the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to produce his evidence in defence. He did not produce the case at all. No further opportunity was required under law to be given to him before passing the proposed order of punishment. It is the Police Rules that the applicable to the case of the petitioner and not the, J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1956. Rules 359 and 360 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules were fully complied with. It has been further averred that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not availed of the alternate remedy of appeal.