BALDEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Charge Sheet served upon the petitioner by the respondent No.4 dated 21.05.2014, inquiry proceedings initiated thereupon and Order dated 31.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 as also Order dated 01.06.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 as an appellate authority are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) The factual matrix, as gatherable from the pleadings of the parties, is that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable and subsequently promoted as Head Constable in the Police Department. On 23.04.2012, the petitioner was attached as CHM of J-Company, IRP 18th Bn at Zewan. He remained there for some time and thereafter was detached. He joined his parent Battalion where he had been performing his duties regularly. It is stated that on 20.05.2013, one Constable, namely, Hilal Gull of 18th Bn. was arrested by the Sopore Police for his involvement in anti-national activities. An FIR, i.e., FIR No.99/2013 under Section 07/25 Arms Act came to be registered against the aforesaid Constable. During investigation, his cell phone was also seized. On the basis of call details of his cell phone, it was found that the said Constable was active in Sopore and its adjacent areas had remained present there w.e.f. 07.03.2012 to 24.12013 and was thus for majority of time absent from his duties in the 18th Bn. The matter was placed before the Armed Police Headquarter and vide Order dated 29.01.2014, respondent No.5 was directed to hold an inquiry against the petitioner and nine others officials of 18th Bn for having committed mis-conduct by wilfully facilitating absence of Constable Hilal Gull, who had remained absent for 386 out of the 408 days and operated in the Sopore and its adjoining area. The allegation against the petitioner was that being CHM, he was supposed to take all warranted actions against the aforesaid Constable in the form of reporting and taking necessary action as per Service Rules but he had failed to do so. The formal charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, which was replied by him. It is the case set up by the petitioner that after receiving reply to the charge sheet, the respondent No.4 straightway issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why his annual increment be not forfeited for five years. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice also, but the same failed to impress the respondent No.4, who vide his Order No.87 of 2017 dated 31.03.2017 directed the forfeiture of five annual increments of the petitioner for having facilitated the Constable Hilal Gull to remain absent from duties, thus, facilitating his terrorism related activities. This order was appealed against by the petitioner before respondent No.3, who vide Order No. 126 of 2017 dated 01.06.2017 rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of respondent No.4. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(3.) The respondents have filed their objections in which, the plea taken is that the petitioner having participated in the inquiry without raising any protest or grievance cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the proceedings only after he has been handed down the penalty of forfeiture of five annual increments. It is stated that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority on 01.06.2017 and, therefore, the challenge thrown to the impugned orders is belated and ill-founded.