IMTIYAZ AHMAD MALLA Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order bearing No. 2580 of 2017 dated 31-07-2017, by virtue of which the respondents have rejected his claim for appointment as Constable as non-maintainable and bereft of genuine grounds. A Writ of Mandamus is also sought to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and pay him all consequential benefits.

(2.) The facts as are essential for the just decision of the instant case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the J & K Police vide order dated 20-08-2009 and was posted in DPL Handwara. While the petitioner was undergoing a training course in the Training School, Manigam, he was midway called back by the DPL Handwara, for facing an enquiry for not having disclosed the pendency of an F.I.R against him. It is further stated that as a consequence, the order of appointment of the petitioner was revoked by the respondents vide order dated 01-03-2010 without holding a proper enquiry in the mater. The petitioner challenged the said order of cancellation of his appointment before the Court in SWP 2616/2011. While responding to the notice in the said petition, the respondents filed the counter, stating therein that an F.I.R for an offence u/s 379 RPC & section 6 of the Forest Act was registered against the petitioner at police Station, Kralgund, in which the Challan was also filed in the Court of the learned CJM, Handwara. However, on account of contradictory evidence, which came to fore during the trial, the petitioner was acquitted and the benefit of doubt was given to him. Justifying the cancellation of the order of appointment, the respondents further stated in their counter that the order has been passed in a fair, just and transparent manner and after conducting a thorough enquiry into the misconduct of the petitioner.

(3.) It is further stated by the petitioner that he filed the rejoinder affidavit in the matter stating therein that the contents of the reply affidavit are false. The petitioner further stated that at the time of his selection, he had submitted all the required documents before the respondents, which were verified by them and it was only thereafter that a formal appointment order was issued in his favour. The petitioner further stated that no enquiry under rules was ever conducted in his case.