SHAISTA BANOO Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a lady constable, has contented in her petition that she came to be appointed as such in the J&K Police Department, District Doda, vide order no. 2204 of 1999 dated 09.10.1999. She applied for the grant of leave for a period of 30 days commencing from 14.8.2004 on the ground that her mother has taken seriously ill and there is no one to look after her welfare. Besides this, the petitioner had a dispute with her husband which had frustrated her. The petitioner applied for the grant of maternity leave with effect from 14.09.2004 for a further period of six months and communicated the same to the respondents through registered post. She labored under the bona fide belief that her leave has been sanctioned by the competent authority. The petitioner on the completion of the period of maternity leave reported before the respondent no. 4 and laid a motion for the resumption of her duties but to her dismay the respondent no. 4 did not allow the petitioner to resume her duties for the reasons not known to the petitioner. The petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondent No. 5 for allowing her to resume duties but no order was passed on it. No notice was served upon the petitioner by the respondent no. 4 or any other officer from 14.08.2004 to 22.07.2013 and finally she came to know that she has been dismissed by Order No. 586 of 2005, dated 11.10.2005 impugned in the petition, which order she obtained from the competent authority after making an application under the J&K Right to Information Act. The petitioner has proceeded to state that the impugned order of dismissal is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. The petitioner was a permanent employee of the respondent department and it was the legal obligation of the respondentsto put the petitioner on notice before initiating any inquiry against her and to give her a reasonable opportunity of being heard. She was also required to show cause orally and in writing for the action proposed to be taken against her but to her disillusionment this was not done and in that context the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the inquiry has not been conducted fairly and freely. The police rules have been given a goby in the conduct of the inquiry and the petitioner has been dismissed from the service on unjustified and unwarranted grounds.

(2.) The respondents filed their response to the petition of the petitioner wherein they stated that the petitioner was informed through SHO P/s Doda, at her home address, to resume her duty vide District Police officer, Doda's letter Nos. OASI/17472 dated 28.05.2003, OASI/13959-61 dated 03.05.2003, OASI/26635/36 dated 31.03.203 and Dy. SP DAR DPL Doda's Letter No. DE/DAR/03/2527-28 dated 30.07.2003 and No. DE/03/2533-90/DAR dated 05.08.2003, respectively, but the petitioner failed to resume duty and was accordingly placed under suspension vide DPO Doda's Order No. 663 of 2003 dated 23.07.2003. The petitioner was also informed through Commandant JKAP 5TH Bn. Vide DPO Doda's wireless message No. OASI/32465 dated 10.09.2013 regarding her suspension as at the relevant point of time, her husband, namely, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad was posted as PSO with the then Commandant JKAP 5th Bn, Srinagar, and it was learnt that the petitioner has been putting up with her husband at his place of posting i.e. Srinagar. Despite repeated communications, the petitioner did not resume her duty and as such, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide DPO Doda's No. OASI/869 dated 09.01.2004, which was published in the daily newspaper "Kashmir Times" dated 15.01.2004, directing her to resume duty within 15 days, as otherwise she would be discharged from services.

(3.) The petitioner resumed her duty in District Police Lines, Doda on 03.08.2004 i.e. after an unauthorized absence of 699 days. The petitioner was reinstated into service vide DPO Doda's Order No. 926 of 2004 dated 06.08.2004 pending enquiry and a regular departmental enquiry was directed to be initiated against the petitioner. The respondent No.6 was appointed as the Enquiry officer to enquire into her unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner again absented herself from District Police Lines, Doda w.e.f. 14.08.2004 and never reported back till her dismissal from service on 11.10.2005. The petitioner was asked by the respondent No.6 vide office signal No. SPD/DE/5/2566-67 dated 13.06.2005 and No. SPD/DE/51 2781 dated 27.06.2005 to resume her duty. She did not turn up. The presence of the petitioner was also sought through a show cause notice bearing No. OASI/352 dated 04.01.2005, which was published on 09.01.2005 in a newspaper running under the name and style of "Kashmir Times". A Copy of said show cause notice was also sent to the then SSP Counter Intelligence (CI), Kashmir, for informing the petitioner as at the relevant point of time her husband was posted as PSO with the then SSP CI, Kashmir, but the petitioner did not bother to resume her duty and resultantly, the petitioner was again placed under suspension vide DPO Doda's Order No. 146 of 2005 dated 04.04.2005 and another departmental enquiry (DE) was ordered for her absence from duty and this enquiry was also entrusted to the respondent No.6.