Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 290 (JK)

Gh. Qadir Khan v. State

2010-05-14

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2010
1. In terms of order impugned bearing No.362 of 1998 dated 1.7.1998, recommendations of the enquiry officer have been accepted and it has been ordered as under:- "i/ Annual increment for a period of (3) three months is stopped which falls next due in respect of Sgct. Gulam Qadir No. 715/XI as corrective measure for future. ii/ Period w.e.f. 12-3-1990 to 24.7.1997 is treated as under:- a) w.e.f. 12-3-1990 to 21-3-1990 i.e. (10) ten days as Earned Leave which is due to him b) w.e.f. 22-3-1990 to 29-6-1990 i.e. (100) one hundred days as Half pay leave which is also due to him c) w.e.f. 30-6-1990 to 23-797 is treated as dies-non but the same period will not interrupt in his qualifying service. 2. Aggrieved thereof instant petition has been filed. 3. Petitioner in the capacity of Selection Grade Constable in the Police Department had proceeded on casual leave but subsequently remained absent, resultantly pursuant to order No. 544 of 1992 dated 30.8.1992 was removed from service by the respondent authorities with effect from March 12, 1990. The same order became the subject of petition SWP No.412/93 which has been decided on July 4, 1997, whereby the said order of removal has been quashed and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated prospectively and the respondents were left free to hold enquiry if so advised and petitioner was directed to be heard during the enquiry if conducted. 4. The respondents while complying the said judgment reinstated the petitioner but at the same time decided to hold the enquiry. One Feroz-ud-din Ahmad Shah, Dy.SP Security was appointed as enquiry officer. The charge sheet dated 14.5.1998 was framed to which the petitioner had filed the detailed reply. During enquiry witnesses have been examined, petitioner has been heard which fact is borne by the records as produced by the learned counsel for the respondents. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer in the detailed reported noticed the conduct of the petitioner. While doing so enquiry officer has indicated the periods during which petitioner had remained absent. During enquiry witnesses have been examined, petitioner has been heard which fact is borne by the records as produced by the learned counsel for the respondents. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer in the detailed reported noticed the conduct of the petitioner. While doing so enquiry officer has indicated the periods during which petitioner had remained absent. It shall be quite relevant to reproduce what the enquiry officer has said about the period of absence: 1- 02.12.1983 to 14.01.1984 =(42) days 2- 09.03.1985 to 16.03.1985 =(07) days 3- 21.04.1987 to 29.04.1987 =(09) days 4- 20.03.1988 to 06.09.1988 =(170)days 5- 25.12.1988 to 04.12.1989 =(41) days 6- 13.08.89 to 18.09.1989 =(37) days Total =314 days While discussing first absence case w.e.f. 2.12.83 to 14.1.84(42 days), the delinquent official within his infancy of his service carrier has absented himself for long period of 42 days, on the plea that his wife was admitted in Tangmarg hospital up to 19.12.83 and had to look after her in hospital as well as at his home till 14.1.84. Here also he has not cited any cogent reason for being away for 42 long days. As regards 2nd absence starting from 9.3.85 to 16.3.85 (7 days) the official has stated that his son had expired and he had to go unauthorisedly absent for seven days. Thirdly for his 9 days absence his plea for being absent has been that he was during course of 6+2 days leave taken ill and did not resume duty in due time. With regards to another absence of long 170 days period he has come up again with the plea of not being well and had been hospitalized. Fifth case of absence for 41 days the reasons for overstayal has been again being unwell and remaining under treatment of doctors. Lastly the SGCT, has remained absent for4 37 days putting forward his argument of being taken ill." 5. Finally the enquiry officer recommended stoppage of three months increments, treating the period with effect from 12.3.1990 to 10.2.1992 on leave whatever kind due and the period 19.2.1992 to 24.7.1997 to be treated as dies-non and finally based on such recommendations, the order impugned has been passed. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of Rule 359 of the Police rules, before awarding punishment petitioner was required to be heard vis-a-vis proposed punishment. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of Rule 359 of the Police rules, before awarding punishment petitioner was required to be heard vis-a-vis proposed punishment. This submission is without any substance as in terms of Rule 359(11), it is only in case of punishment such as removal, discharge from service or reduction in rank, the disciplinary authority had to give chance to the petitioner. For the punishment as has been proposed and inflicted, there is no such requirement. 7. Next learned counsel contended that Rule 334(2)(d) and 334(3) of the Police Rules have not been adhered to. This submission too is without substance because a full-fledged enquiry has been conducted, thereafter competent authority has imposed the penalty. No fault is found with the same nor learned counsel could elucidate anything in support of his contention. 8. What emerges from above is that the authorities concerned have been kind to the petitioner as keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, as detailed in the report and reproduced hereinabove, in a disciplined force same is absolutely impermissible but still the respondents have properly taken note of the developments and the position of ailment of the petitioner, more particularly the enquiry officer has prepared a well reasoned report, that too after petitioner has been heard, based on which order impugned has been rightly passed. Adherence to the rules and regulations and the proper enquiry conducted leaves no scope for interference with the order impugned. Order is absolutely justified and is in consonance with law, so does not call for any interference. 9. Petition being without any merit is dismissed. 10. Record as has been produced be returned to be learned counsel for the respondents.