Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 71 (JK)

Mohd. Majnoon Mir v. State

2005-03-23

HAKIM IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN

body2005
1. Since a common question for determination arises in all the above-referred writ petitions, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Facts are almost similar in all these cases. Petitioners were working as police constables in Jammu & Kashmir Police Department. They were holding substantive post. During the course of their service they absented themselves from duty. Some of them had gone on sanctioned leave but later overstayed leave without formal sanction or extension in leave while others absented themselves without any permission right from the beginning. Concerned Police Authorities allegedly issued notices to them to resume duty but the petitioners failed to report back to duty. Unauthorised absence of the petitioners from duty compelled the authorities to terminate their services/remove them. According termination orders followed which have been impugned in the present petitions. 3. Admittedly no enquiry has been conducted as envisaged by Rule 359 of J&K Police Manual by the concerned authorities while terminating the services of the petitioners. In SWP No. 957/2000 Mohammad Majnoon Mir v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as a constable vide order No. 124/87 dated 16.2.1987. He proceeded on leave from Police Station Budgam but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 849 of 1990 dated 1.11.1990. In SWP No. 344/2003 Nazir Ahmed Baba v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as a constable. He proceeded on leave from Police Station Kulgam but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 1522 of 1992 dated 19.11.1992. In SWP No. 1117/2000 sick (1995) Bashir Ahmed Wani v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as constable in J&K Armed Police 4th Bn. Under No. Constable 112 dated 6.11.1991. He proceeded on leave but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 1050 of 1992 dated 2.6.1992. In SWP No. 1786/2003 Gulazr Ahmed Dar v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as a constable. He proceeded on leave from Police Station Duroo but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 857 of 2003 dated 17.7.2003. In SWP No. 3048/94 Dilshad Ahmed v. State & Ors. the petitioner was appointed as a Guard-man vide Govt. Order No. 226 of 1968 dated 6.6.1968. He proceeded on leave from Police Station Duroo but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 857 of 2003 dated 17.7.2003. In SWP No. 3048/94 Dilshad Ahmed v. State & Ors. the petitioner was appointed as a Guard-man vide Govt. Order No. 226 of 1968 dated 6.6.1968. He proceeded on leave but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 62 of 1983 dated 14.1.1983. In SWP No. 2183/98 Ghulam Nabi Bhat v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as a constable vide order No. 988/87 dated 27.12.1987. He proceeded on leave but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 288 of 1990 dated 30.4.1990. In SWP No. 2227/98 Gh. Mohi-ud-din v. State & Ors. the petitioner was appointed as a constable in J&K Armed Police in the year 1988. He proceeded on leave but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 863 of 1996 dated 12.9.1996. In SWP No. 1379/99 Gh. Mohd. Teli v. State & Ors. the petitioner was appointed as a constable. He proceeded on leave from Police Station Kulgam but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 317 of 199 dated 22.2.1999. In SWP No. 2309/96 Saifullah Mugal v. State & Ors. the petitioner was appointed as a constable way back in the year 1979. He proceeded on leave from Police Station Nowhatta, Srinagar but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 1934 of 1992 dated 3.9.1992. In SWP No. 974 of 2003 Nasurullah Sheikh v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as a constable vide order No. 940 of 1998 dated 11.11.1998. He proceeded on leave from Police Station Awantipora but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 70 of 2003 dated 22.3.2003. In SWP No. 1675 of 1998 Ram Rattan v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as a constable in J&K Armed Police in Jan.1983. He proceeded on leave but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 217 of 1998 dated 4.6.1998. In SWP No. 56/2000 Abdul Majeed Bhat v. State & Ors. the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 24.9.1991. He proceeded on leave but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 217 of 1998 dated 4.6.1998. In SWP No. 56/2000 Abdul Majeed Bhat v. State & Ors. the petitioner was appointed as a constable on 24.9.1991. He proceeded on leave from but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 831 of 1992 dated 16.4.1992. In SWP No. Gh. Mohd. Wani v. State & Ors the petitioner was appointed as a constable in the month of 2/1987. He proceeded on leave but did not turn up on due date. His services were terminated vide order No. 294 of 1990 dated 24.5.1990. 4. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the State Constitution. It is alleged that the termination order passed on them is unconstitutional, illegal and without any legal force. Main ground raised to assail the order both in the writ petition as well as before the court during arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order has been passed without conducting any enquiry as provided by the rules. It is alleged that no formal charge was framed, no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to explain his absence, no evidence was recorded nor was any show cause notice issued to the petitioner while imposing the penalty of removal from service. 5. The State has filed reply in which the contentions of the petitioners have been vehemently denied. While admitting that the petitioners have been terminated from the service, the authorities have taken the plea that before passing the termination orders due notices were given to the petitioners to resume duty but despite all the efforts, the petitioners failed to join the duty. 6. Petitioners as indicated above have been removed/terminated from service on the ground of unauthorised absence and failure to resume duty, without any formal enquiry. The department has taken the plea that a regular enquiry could not be held as the petitioners did not resume duty despite notice, therefore were not available for an enquiry. 6. Petitioners as indicated above have been removed/terminated from service on the ground of unauthorised absence and failure to resume duty, without any formal enquiry. The department has taken the plea that a regular enquiry could not be held as the petitioners did not resume duty despite notice, therefore were not available for an enquiry. The question which arises for determination in all these petitions is as to whether the authorities can terminate the services of a police official, holding a substantive post, without resorting to regular enquiry on the ground that the official, being absent from duty was not available for such enquiry. 7. Rule 334 of the J&K Police Mannual provides that no police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as prescribed in the police rules. Under the rules before imposing a major punishment which includes removal from service, the authorities have to hold a regular enquiry into the conduct of the official. Rule 359 provides procedure to be followed in such enquiries. It provides: @A2 = "359 Procedure in Departmental Enquiries (1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries:- (a) The enquiry shall, whenever, possible be conducted by a gazetted officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon the accused officer. Any other gazetted officer or an Inspector specially empowered by the Minister I/C Police Department, to hold departmental enquiries (vide order No. 636-C dated 27.6.1945) may be deputed to hold an inquiry or may institute an enquiry on his own initiative against an accused police officer who is directly subordinate to him, except that in the case of a complaint against a constable the inquiry may be conducted by an Inspector. The final order, however, may by passed only by an officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon the accused police officer. (2) The officer conducting the inquiry shall summon the accused police officer before him and shall record and read out to him a statement summarising the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give full notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. (3) If the accused police officer at this stage admits the misconduct alleged against him the officer conducting the enquiry may proceed forthwith to record a final order if it is within his power to do so or a finding to be forwarded to an officer empowered to decide the case. (3) If the accused police officer at this stage admits the misconduct alleged against him the officer conducting the enquiry may proceed forthwith to record a final order if it is within his power to do so or a finding to be forwarded to an officer empowered to decide the case. Whenever a serious default is reported and the preliminary enquiry is necessary before a definite charge can be framed, this is usually best done on the spot and might be carried out by the Sub-Inspector of the particular Police Station in the case of head constables and constables serving under him or by the Inspector of the circle in the case of Sub-Inspectors within his charge. At the same time it must be left to Superintendent of Police to select the most suitable officers for the purpose or to do it themselves when such a course appears desirable. When the preliminary enquiry indicates a criminal offence, application for permission to prosecute should at once be made to the authority competent to dismiss the officer and permission should be promptly granted if that authority agrees that there is prima-facie case for prosecution. (4) If the accused police officer does not admit that misconduct the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record such evidence oral and documentary in proof of the accusations as is available and necessary to support the charge. Whenever possible witnesses shall be examined direct and in the presence of the accused who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine them. The officer conducting the enquiry is empowered however to bring on to the record the statement of any witness whose presence cannot in the opinion of such officer be produced without undue delay and expense or inconvenience if he considers such statement necessary and provided that it has been recorded and attested by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector or by a Magistrate and is signed by the person making it. The accused shall be bound to answer questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him, with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in statements or documents brought on the record as herein provided. The accused shall be bound to answer questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him, with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in statements or documents brought on the record as herein provided. (5) When the evidence in support of the allegations has been recorded, the enquiring officer shall:- (a) if he considers that such allegations are not substantiated either discharge the accused himself if he is empowered to punish him, or recommend his discharge to the Superintendent or other officer who may be so empowered, or (b) proceed to frame a formal charge or charges in writing, explain them to the accused officer and call upon him to answer them. (6) The accused officer shall be required to state the defence witnesses whom he wishes to call and may be given time in no case exceeding 48 hours to prepare a list of such witnesses together with a summary of the facts as to which they will testify. The enquiring officer shall be empowered to refuse to hear any witnesses whose evidence he considers will be irrelevant or unnecessary in regard to the specified charge framed in which case he shall record the reason for his refusal. He shall record the statements of those defence witnesses whom he decides to admit in the presence of the accused, who shall be allowed to address questions to them the answer to which shall be recorded, provided by any other officer not below the rank of Inspector the statement of any such witness whose presence cannot be secured without undue delay or inconvenience and may bring such statement on to the record. The accused may file documentary evidence and may for this purpose be allowed access to such files and papers except such as form part of the record of the confidential office of the Superintendent of Police as the enquiring officer deems fit. The supply of copies of documents to the accused shall be subject to the ordinary rules regarding copying fees. (7) At the conclusion of the defence evidence or if the enquiring officer so directs at any earlier State, following the framing of a charge the accused shall be required to state his own answer to the charge. The supply of copies of documents to the accused shall be subject to the ordinary rules regarding copying fees. (7) At the conclusion of the defence evidence or if the enquiring officer so directs at any earlier State, following the framing of a charge the accused shall be required to state his own answer to the charge. He may be permitted to file a written statement and may be given time not exceeding one week for its preparation but shall be bound to made an oral statement in answer to all questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him arising out of the charge, the recorded evidence or his own written statement. (8) The enquiring officer shall then proceed to pass orders of acquittal or punishment if empowered to do so or to forward the case with his finding and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. (9) Nothing in the foregoing rules shall debar a Superintendent of Police from making or causing to be made a preliminary investigation into the conduct of a suspected officer. Such an inquiry is not infrequently necessary to ascertain the nature and degree of misconduct which is to be formally enquired into. The suspected police officer may or may not be present at such preliminary enquiry as ordered by the Superintendent of Police or other gazetted officer initiating the investigation but shall not cross-examine witnesses. The file of such a preliminary investigation shall form not part of the formal departmental record but may be used for the purposes of sub-rule 4 above. (10) The rule shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation. The file of such a preliminary investigation shall form not part of the formal departmental record but may be used for the purposes of sub-rule 4 above. (10) The rule shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation. (11) As laid down in section 126 of the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, no officer shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed." From this rule it is evident that the procedure for imposing major penalty involves: (i) The delivery of a charge sheet; (ii) Appointment of an enquiry officer; (iii) Providing opportunity to the delinquent official to submit his defence and to be heard; (iv) The enquiry where oral and documentary evidence is produced by both sides; (v) The preparation of a report after the conclusion of the enquiry and forwarding of the same to the disciplinary authority (where the disciplinary authority is not itself the enquiring Authority); (vi) Action on the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority; (vii) Notice to the delinquent official to show cause on the penalty proposed; (viii) Meaning of the order imposing penalty (ix) Communication of the orders. In Jehangir Ahmad Mir v. State of J&K. 1998 SLJ 134 this Court had the occasion to examine the ambit the scope of the provisions of Rule 337 and 359 of J&K Police Rules read with Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. The Court held:- "It is a matter of common knowledge by now that no member of a State service or a person holding post under the State can be removed from service save otherwise in accordance with the requirements of Section 126(2) of the State Constitution read with Article 311 of the Indian Constitution which contemplates conveying the specific charges to the delinquent and providing him a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard and then his removal from service after an enquiry. Section 126(2) of the State Constitution provides for an additional safeguard of a second show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment to be imposed. This position is supplemented by the police Rules, Rule 359 whereof prescribes procedure for conducting departmental enquiry against police personnel. Section 126(2) of the State Constitution provides for an additional safeguard of a second show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment to be imposed. This position is supplemented by the police Rules, Rule 359 whereof prescribes procedure for conducting departmental enquiry against police personnel. Similarly Rule 336 lays emphasis on the suitability of punishment and cautions the Authority to be careful by taking in regard the character of the delinquent and his past service. Similarly Rule 337 places a constraint on the exercise of the power of dismissal and illustrates the cases though not exhaustively wherein this power was exercised, regard being had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. All this pointed to the checks imposed by law for exercise of the power of dismissal against a delinquent police employee. Under Rule 359, the enquiry officer is required to summon the delinquent officer before him and read out a statement summarising his alleged mis-conduct in such a way as to give him full notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence was required to be recorded in the matter. Thereafter depending upon the denial if any made by the delinquent, the enquiry officer was required to proceed to record such evidence as would be available and necessary to support the charge. The witnesses were required to be examined in presence of the delinquent and after this he was to be granted an opportunity to lead his defence evidence or to file his documentary evidence and to state his own answer to the charge. The enquiry officer was then to submit the recommendations or topics order of acquittal or punishment, if he was competent to do so." Similarly in Ghulam Mohammad v. State of J&K 1998 SLJ 273 the Court, while discussing Rule 259 held:- "Rule 359 of Police Rules postulates two-fold stages of the enquiry, one preliminary and another after framing the charge. As regards preliminary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer is required to follow the procedure as laid down under sub-rules (1) to (5) of Rule 359 of Police Rules. Perusal of the charge sheet does not depict the names of the witnesses who have been examined during the preliminary enquiry, so much so it does not even depict as to whether he was ever summoned, recording and reading out a statement of summary of allegations is, therefore, ruled-out. Perusal of the charge sheet does not depict the names of the witnesses who have been examined during the preliminary enquiry, so much so it does not even depict as to whether he was ever summoned, recording and reading out a statement of summary of allegations is, therefore, ruled-out. The charge sheet depicts that a communication was sent to the petitioner was provided an opportunity to question the witnesses which he did not but it does not indicate that the basic requirement was observed which makes it obligatory upon the enquiry officer to summon the petitioner and read out the statement of summary of allegations to him and after observing the said requirement question, of recording evidence would arise. Having failed to follow the mandate of rule, the preliminary enquiry vitiates, for, same has not been in accordance with the mandate of Rule 359 of Police Rules and on this count the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The procedure which the Enquiry Officer has to follow after framing the charge is envisaged in sub-rules 6 and 7 of Rule 359 of Police rules. Sub rule 6 makes it obligatory upon the enquiry officer to provide an opportunity to the accused official to give a list of such witnesses whom he would like to produce in defence and record their statements. It further provides that the statements of such witnesses can be recorded even at the places of their availability, of course, for the reasons detailed in the said sub-rules. The said sub-rule further provides that even access to the files, excepting the confidential record, can also be permitted and the object is to allow sufficient opportunity of defence to the delinquent official/officer. After receiving the evidence , oral and documentary, yet another opportunity is to be made available to the delinquent official at conclusion of the defence evidence under sub-rule 7 to make a statement in reply for the charge, so much so the delinquent official can seek permission to files a written statement in his defence after the conclusion of the evidence in defence." 8. While taking a disciplinary action against a police official/officer not only an enquiry is required to be held but there should be strict compliance to the manner and procedure laid down by Rule 359. Any deviation will render the penalty imposed as bad in law. In Ghulam Ahmad & Ors. While taking a disciplinary action against a police official/officer not only an enquiry is required to be held but there should be strict compliance to the manner and procedure laid down by Rule 359. Any deviation will render the penalty imposed as bad in law. In Ghulam Ahmad & Ors. v. Sr. Superintendent of Police 1988 JKLR 1367, though departmental enquiry was conducted into the alleged slackness in duty committed by the petitioners-who were police constables but the court found that the enquiry had not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 359 of J&K Police manual, the court held the order impugned imposing penalty of dismissal upon the petitioners was unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law. The court observed:- "Rule 359 is an all comprehensive provision and gives the complete procedure for holding of departmental inquiry against a police officer. First of all the Enquiry Officer has to summon the accused police officer before him and record his statement summarising the alleged mis-conduct in such a way as to give full notice of the circumstances, in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. This statement is just like the one as recorded Under Section 242 of the Cr. P.C., when the plea of the accused is to be recorded. If he pleads guilty, he is to be punished there and then by the competent authority. If he does not plead guilty, then the evidence of the department is to recorded against him and full opportunity of cross examination to be given. When the evidence in support of the allegations has been recorded, the enquiry officer shall discharge him if the allegations are not substantiated or recommend the same to the competent authority. If the charge stands substantiated, then he has to frame a formal charge in writing, explain them to him and call upon him to answer them. Thereafter, the accused officer has to be required to state the defence witnesses, whom he wishes to call and may be given time to prepare a list of such witnesses. On production of such witnesses the Enquiry Officer has to record their statements. At the conclusion of the defence evidence, the accused shall be required to state his own answers to the charge. He may be permitted to file a written statement. On production of such witnesses the Enquiry Officer has to record their statements. At the conclusion of the defence evidence, the accused shall be required to state his own answers to the charge. He may be permitted to file a written statement. The Enquiry officer shall then proceed to pass orders of acquittal or punishment, if empowered to do so, or the forward the case with his findings and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. 28. The procedure mentioned above is to be followed in every departmental inquiry against a police officer, as it is mandatory in character. As this procedure has not been followed in the case in hand, it vitiates the whole proceedings before the Enquiring Officer and also the proceedings taken by the S.S.P. The result is that the order impugned passed by the S.S.P. is unconstitutional, illegal and bad in law." 9. Rule 359 not only provides that the delinquent police official shall be given opportunity to meet the charge(s) against him but sub rule (2) of the rule specifically provides such official has to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the proposed penalty. It provides:- (2) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed or reduce in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, provided that this clause shall not apply:- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge: (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove an officer or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; or (c) where the Sadar-I-Riyasat is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to give to that officer such an opportunity." 10. In Syed Hussain v. Stated of J&K & Ors. 1988 JKLR 1047, where a Head-constable has been removed from services, though on an enquiry but without a show cause notice to him against the proposed punishment, the court held: 10. In Syed Hussain v. Stated of J&K & Ors. 1988 JKLR 1047, where a Head-constable has been removed from services, though on an enquiry but without a show cause notice to him against the proposed punishment, the court held: 10. From the reading of this rule petitioner was to be given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action against him. This court can be dispensed with if he was found guilty on a criminal charge which led to his conviction or the officer competent to punish him could have recorded in writing that it was not reasonable to give the person an opportunity of showing cause or when it is not practicable for the security and interest of the state. 11. In the instant case petitioner was not convicted by a criminal court nor had the punishing authority recorded his reasons as to why he did not give show cause notice to him against the proposed punishment nor was it mentioned that it is not in the interest and the security of the State. Therefore, he was entitled to be given a show cause notice against the proposed punishment under Rule 359 (11)(2) of the J&K Police Mannul Vol.II. that has not been given. As such order of dismissal suffers from serious infirmity and cannot be sustained in the present form. 11. There can be no doubt that absence from duty without a proper permission or overstaying a leave without any valid and justified reason is the gravest type of mis-conduct particularly for a member of the disciplined force from whom strict adherence to the rules is expected. Earlier in State of Punjab v. Parkash Chand 1992 (1) SLR (P&H). High Court took the view that absence from duty was not the gravest type of mis-conduct but now the Apex Court has held that absence of a police constable from duty without leave was a grave charge. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh AIR 1996 SC 736 the Supreme Court did not appreciate the view of the High Court that absence of a police official was not a grave charge and observed (at para 8): "We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having noticed the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions, we were unable to appreciate the High Courts observation that `his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that `the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge." 12. The Apex Court found that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment of dismissal. Absence from duty for a police constable amounts to grave charge which may involve even the extreme penalty of dismissal/removal from service is settled now. Reference in this behalf may also be made to State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh 1997 (4) SLR 590, State of Punjab v. Constable Sarwan Singh 1996 (1) Supreme Today 636, & S.G. Chakraborty v. State of Tripura AIR 1989 SC 1321. 13. Thus unauthorised absence amounts to misconduct necessitating holding of an enquiry particularly in the case of a member of a disciplined force. Where there is overstaying of leave and absence from duty without justification it would be misconduct justifying penalty even upto the extent of dismissal but the concerned employee must be given an opportunity of being heard before any prejudicial action is taken. 14. It was vehemently argued by Mr. Rather, learned AAG, appearing for the State that no doubt the authorities were required by the rules to conduct the enquiry before terminating the services of the petitioners but they could not do so due to the conduct of the petitioners. He would argue that the petitioners remained on prolonged absence and did not report to duty despite notices and reminders and since they were not available, it was not practicable to hold the enquiry and the authorities had no choice but to proceed with imposing the penalty without an enquiry and in absence of the petitioners. 15. The argument though appealing is devoid of any merit and cannot be accepted. 16. 15. The argument though appealing is devoid of any merit and cannot be accepted. 16. If the authorities felt that it was not practicable to hold an enquiry due to the absence, non-cooperation or hostile attitude of the petitioners, they should have exercised their powers under Rule 359 (ii) (2) (b) which empowers the authorities to dispense with the enquiry on the ground of impracticability. In such a case the authority must record in writing the reason as also the satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. If this is not done the enquiry and the penalty would be void and unconstitutional. 17. In the present cases we find that no such satisfaction is recorded in any of the cases, so the exception cannot be invoked and it cannot be said that the authority dispensed with the enquiry under the said clause. 18. In view of this discussion I find that the penalty imposed upon the petitioners in all the cases under discussion cannot stand. The impugned orders in all these writ petitions i.e. Order Nos.849 of 90 dated 1.11.1990, 1522 of 92 dated 19.11.1992, 1050 of 1992 dated 2.6.1992, 857 of 2003 dated 17.7.2003, Estt/6/3218-25/VI dated 7.3.1988, 62 of 1983 dated 14.1.1983, 288 of 1990 dated 30.4.1990, 863 of 1996 dated 12.9.1996, 317 of 1999 dated 22.2.1999, 1934 of 1992 dated 3.9.1992, 70 of 2003 dated 22.3.2003, 217 of 1998 dated 4.6.1998, 831 of 1992 dated 16.4.1992 and 294 of 1990 dated 24.5.1990 respectively are hereby quashed. 19. The respondents are however free to hold a regular enquiry in each case. Enquiry should be held strictly in accordance with the provisions of J&K Police Manual. Keeping in view the delay already caused it is directed that if the authority decide to hold any enquiry in any of the cases the same be initiated and completed as far as practicable, within a period of four months from the date copy of this order is served on the concerned authorities. Quashment of the impugned orders however shall not entitle the petitioners to any salary/remuneration or wages during the period they were out of service. The authorities may deal with this issue on getting the final report of enquiry and decide the same in view of the findings therein. 20. Registry is directed to place a Photostat copy of the judgment on each file.