ZUBAIR BIN MAJEED Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, vide Order No. TRG/624/2012/36352 dated 26th July 2012, was appointed as Constable and subsequently deputed to CTC Lethpora for undergoing nine months' Basic Recruit Training Course (BRTC), scheduled to commence from 01.08.2012. He was vide Order dated 30.07.2012. He claims to have joined CTC Lethpora and continued his training for a period of nine months. During training, he is stated to have slipped down and his leg injured. The said injury is averred to have been treated by the department. Thereafter petitioner again got fracture in his back and he was not able to move and was confined to bed. In support of the contentions, pleaded in writ petition, learned counsel for petitioner has referred to medical certificates with regard to petitioner's illness and submitted that petitioner has already conveyed respondents as to his ailment by forwarding a leave along with medical certificates through courier. It is further contended that immediately after recovery from illness, petitioner approached respondents for resuming his duties, but he was not allowed to resume; instead he was handed over copy of impugned order which has effect of discharging him from duties and against which petitioner filed a representation to respondent no. 2. Despite noticing the illness and medical certificates, respondents issued order of discharge in terms of Rules 187 of J &K Police Manual. Learned counsel for petitioner has also submitted that since impugned order, whereby, discharging petitioner from services, is against settled law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, because petitioner cannot be discharged in terms of Rules of 187 of J &K Police Manual without conducting the enquiry. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, has referred to and relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2015 (4) JKJ 95 (HC).

(2.) In their objections respondents assert that during period of probation petitioner remained absent at several occasions, for which he was awarded departmental punishment, as such, his service record did not remain satisfactory and up to the mark. It is insisted that petitioner along with other recruit Constables was selected to undergo BRTC and he was relieved from the District vide Order No. Estt/BRTC/212/11912-21 dated 30.07.2012. However, petitioner absented from the said training unauthorizedly at various occasions. The petitioner is averred to have deserted from the training centre on 27.03.2013 and remained at large and exhibited non-seriousness towards attaining the training. Further contention of respondents is that several notices have been served on petitioner, but of no response, thus, leaving respondents with no option but to issue Discharge Order, whereby services of petitioner have been discharged on the basis of his conduct.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.