SHAKEEL AHMED Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was selected for the post of constable in the police department was sent to police training school. While he was posted there he is said to have committed an act which fell in the mischief of theft. Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Petitioner was found guilty of the charge. He was dismissed from the service. Petitioner preferred an appeal. Appeal was dismissed. Further revision was preferred before Inspector General of Police, the same was also dismissed. it is in these circumstances, petitioner has come to this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the order in question, no charge sheet was served on him. It is again urged that show cause notice which was served on the petitioner asking him as to why he should not be removed from service did not envisage the punishment of dismissal as contemplated under Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is urged that in para 3 of, the show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to show cause within a period of one week. In this show cause notice he was called upon to appear for personal hearing on 9th of December, 1991. This letter was issued on 7th of December 1991. It is thus urged that one week's time was not given to the petitioner. It is in these circumstance, it is urged that Superintendent of Police Jammu was in undue haste in removing the petitioner from service. It is urged that when notice was issued on 7th of December 1991 and petitioner was asked to appear on 9th of December 1991 then period of one week's time cannot be said to have been given by any mathematical calculation. It is also urged that it was proposed to remove the petitioner from the service but the petitioner was visited with the extreme penalty of dismissal. In addition to the above it is urged that no charge sheet was served on the petitioner. For this specific reliance has been placed on paras 6 and 7 of the petition. For facility of reference these parts are reproduced below :-

(3.) It is pertinent to note that although the notice gave a week's time to the petitioner to show cause yet before the expiry of that time the respondent No. 3 hurried to pass the impugned order dated 10.12.1991 Annexure A-3.