GH MOHD (CONSTABLE) Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed constable in the Police Department with effect from April 04, 1983. He was posted at Kupwara at the relevant time when he was asked to proceed on leave because of the sudden passing away of his son on December 14,1989. Reasserts that he thereafter fell ill and could not resume his -duty with effect from December 20,1989 to May 20, 1990. He obtained a certificate of his fitness from Medical Officer Anantnag and when he tried to join his duty, he was informed that he stood discharged from service by order No. 419 of 1990 dated April 07, 1990 passed by respondent No.3 He assails this order only on the ground that he was ousted from service arbitrarily and without any inquiry and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also pointed out by him that respondent No.2 had reinstated some of his colleagues, particulars whereof are given in para No. 8 of the writ petition who were similarly situated with him.

(2.) IN their reply filed by the respondent, it is admitted that the petitioner was asked to proceed on leave upon the death of his son. It is alleged that the petitioner has failed to re -turn on his duty thereafter despite notices having been served upon him to resume his duty and he had remained absent for about five months. It is explained that it was not possible for the Police Department to retain any of the absentee police personnel on the rolls in view of the disturbed conditions in the valley and resultantly the petitioner was discharged from service taking in regard his absence from duty and disregard to the Police Rules and discipline in the Police force. However, it is not indicated that any inquiry was held in the matter to afford an opprotunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstances which prevented him to perform his duty.

(3.) IT transpires that the petitioner had put in more than seven years service and, therefore, he could not be ousted from service on a mere ipsi -dixi but only after holding an inquiry into the charge of unauthorised absence from duty. He was not only entitled to be informed of the charge against him, but also was required to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of justifying his absence form duty and above all he was entitled to a notice proposing punishment of dismissal from service in terms of section 126(2} of the State Constitution.