SYED ALAM Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has called in question No.792 of 2003 dated 05 -07 -2003 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, whereby petitioner came to be discharged from service with effect from the date of his absence i.e. 07 -06 -2003. The main ground of challenge taken by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the order impugned came to be passed without conducting an enquiry and that he had not been provided an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have filed reply in which they have contended that the petitioner remained absent from duty unauthorizedly and despite notices issued to him to resume his duties, he failed to turn up and was accordingly discharged from service. It is nowhere stated in the reply that any enquiry was conducted against him.

(3.) PERUSAL of the record reveals that the petitioner came to be appointed as Police Constable and was subsequently promoted as Selection Grade Constable. He came to be discharged from service vide order No.792/2003 dated 5 -7 -2003 issued by Sr. Superintendent of Police, Anantnag. The allegation against the petitioner is that he remained absent from duty and is unlikely to prove himself an efficient police officer and without conducting an enquiry as envisaged by Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, he came to be discharged from service.