SHOWKAT AHMAD KUNDOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the Order No. 421/2016 dated 11.11.2016, for short impugned order, and the period from 7th May 2015 till the disposal of the writ petition may be declared as on duty. The petitioner has further prayed that respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f. 07.05.2015 and grant him all the consequential benefits including back wages w.e.f. 7th May, 2015.

(2.) Briefly stated the petitioner claims to have been appointed as Constable in the J&K Police (Executive) in terms of order No. 320 of 2012 dated 14.08.2012 after having emerged as successful in the selection process initiated by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner, subsequently, joined in the District Police Lines, Ganderbal, on 14th August, 2012. The petitioner, later on, was transferred to district Pulwama and the he joined his service in district police lines Pulwama on 28th May, 2014. The petitioner is stated to have absented from duties because of the worsening health conditions of his parents and the petitioner, being the only son, could not afford to leave them alone. The petitioner has placed on record the medical prescriptions of his parents in support of his plea. The petitioner has further averred in the writ petition that the petitioner lost his father to illness while as the mother continued to be sick. He further avers that on seeing some improvement in the health of his mother he reported back to his duties and requested the authorities to allow him to join his duties, but his request was not acceded to. It is further averred in the writ petition that even though he was not allowed to mark his attendance he continued to attend to his duties.

(3.) The petitioner is, thereafter, stated to have been discharged from service in terms of Order No. 421/2016 dated 11/11/2016, impugned herein. The challenge to the impugned order and the further relief of mandamus is sought inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was condemned unheard as no enquiry in the matter, as was required in terms of the relevant rules, has ever been conducted; the impugned order is stigmatic therefore, bad in law; the respondents have taken recourse to Rule 187 of the Police Rules of 1960 which could not have been applied to the petitioner has he had completed continuous three years of service by the time the impugned order came to be issued.