AB RASHID LONE Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to dispose of these petitions by a common judgement as identical questions of fact and law are involved in all these petitions.

(2.) IT appears that writ petitioners were manning the Guard Post at Dangam bridge (Shopian). On 6 -1 -2004 at about 19.30 hours, militants entered the Guard Post and after disarming the petitioners, ran away with the entire arms and ammunition along with bullet proof jackets. FIR No. 5/2004 under sections 395, 121 RPC and 7/25 Indian Arms Act came to be registered in Police Station Shopian. The petitioners came to be arrested and preliminary enquiry came to be conducted. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and there -after the competent authority passed the impugned orders of termination/discharge against them. Deputy Inspector General of Police passed termination order against HC Abdul Rashid Lone No. 28/PL which is impugned in SWP No. 649/2004 and SSP Pulwama passed termination / discharge orders against other five writ petitioners namely Abass Ahmad Malik, Fayaz Ahmad Bhat, Manzoor Ahmad Lone, Abdul Qayoom Turk and Bashir Ahmad Dar.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY the writ petitioners were in custody at the relevant point of time i.e. from 6 -1 -2004 till passing of the impugned orders and came to be admitted to bail by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, vide order dated3 -3 -2004, as per photostat copy of the docket annexed with the petition. There is nothing on file to suggest the fact that they were ever produced before the enquiry officer. When they were heard, when they were asked to participate in the enquiry proceedings, when and how they cross examined the witnesses and when they were asked to examine the witnesses in defence. If enquiry officer would have provided an opportunity to the petitioners of participating in the enquiry proceedings, then he would have sought permission from the court for their production, because admittedly they were in the Judicial lockup at the relevant point of time. The so -called enquiry appears to have been conducted at the back of the petitioners.