JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Justice Hasnain Massodi, Judge 1. The petitioner, appointed as Constable in J&K Police Department vide order No. 56/89 dated 25th January 1989, has been discharged from services by Senior Superintendent of Police Anantnag respondent No. 5 herein, vide order No. 137/2003 dated 30th January 2003, on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty. 2. The petitioner assails the discharge order on the grounds set out in the petition and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of discharge order impugned in the petition. The petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to reinstate the petitioner and also release all consequential benefits of pay and allowances in his favour and a writ of prohibition restraining respondents to fill up the post fallen vacant in wake of discharge of petitioner. The petitioner#s case is as under: 1. The petitioner, while posted in District Police Lines Anantnag, met a vehicular accident on 29th October 2002 at Bijbehara and was hospitalised in Sub District Hospital, Bijbehara as a case of road accident under MRD No. 3380. After his discharge from Hospital on 29th October 2002, he reported to duty at police station Batamalloo and thereafter at Civil Secretariat, Srinagar. The petitioner in the meantime applied for leave to take some rest that had become necessary because of vehicular accident he met at Bijbehara. The competent authority decided to consider leave only after a reliever was deputed as adequate security was required in view of annual Darbar Move from Srinagar to Jammu. The petitioner was finally on 11th November 2002 directed to return to District Police Lines Anantnag, where he again applied for leave and 06 days casual leave was sanctioned in his favour as against 60 days leave sought by him. However, petitioner was not in a position to resume duty because of injury suffered in vehicular accident and the medical advice to take 08 weeks bed rest. The petitioner reported to duty on 30th January 2003 but was not allowed to resume duties and instead discharged from service vide order impugned in the petition. An appeal was filed against order of discharge, through not dealt with till the petitioner filed writ petition. 2. The petitioner reported to duty on 30th January 2003 but was not allowed to resume duties and instead discharged from service vide order impugned in the petition. An appeal was filed against order of discharge, through not dealt with till the petitioner filed writ petition. 2. The petitioner questions impugned order on the ground that the respondent No. 5, while passing discharge order impugned in the petition, has violated Statutory and Constitutional rights of petitioner guaranteed under J&K Police Rules 1960 (in short #Police Rules#) and Article , Constitution of India. It is insisted that respondents did not find it necessary to hold an inquiry into alleged misconduct nor did respondents afford an opportunity to petitioner to explain his stand. 3. The petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner has all along shown non-serious and casual attitude towards his duty and has been reprimanded for his indolence and given punishment number of times since his initial appointment. It is pleaded that petitioner failed to report to duty despite repeated notices duly served on the petitioner and was thus rightly discharged from the services having regard to his track record as the petitioner was unlikely to prove himself an efficient officer. 4. I have gone through the pleadings and heard learned counsel for parties. 5. The petitioner admittedly has been discharged without any inquiry. The petitioner obviously has not been given an opportunity to explain the reasons that contributed to his absence from duty with effect from 29th November 2002 to 30th January 2003 and to show cause against his discharge. The respondents instead have fallen back upon Rule 187, J&K Police Rules 1960 to dispense with the inquiry and discharge the petitioner on the ground of his inefficiency. The respondent No. 5 while making discharge order surprisingly has lost sight of the fact that Rule 187 (supra) can be pressed into service only within 03 years of enrolment of a Constable found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. It follows that where the Constable has more than 03 years service to his credit, his services cannot be discharged under Rule 187 Police Rules. In such a case the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to hold departmental inquiry and follow procedure laid down in Rule 359 Police Rules. It follows that where the Constable has more than 03 years service to his credit, his services cannot be discharged under Rule 187 Police Rules. In such a case the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to hold departmental inquiry and follow procedure laid down in Rule 359 Police Rules. In the present case the petitioner as admitted in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, was enrolled on 21st January 1989. The petitioner on the date of impugned order had about 14 years service to his credit. The right course for the respondents was to hold inquiry against the petitioner and if by such an inquiry charge of misconduct was proved, to afford the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against the penalty proposed and thereafter award punishment as laid down in Chapter XI of Police Rules. It needs no emphasis that a government employee against whom misconduct is alleged, has not only a right to contest the charge but also to show cause against the penalty proposed to be inflicted, in the event misconduct is proved. The government employee may even where misconduct is proved contend that in view of extenuating circumstances, the proposed punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him. In any case the discharge order No. 137/2003 dated 30th January 2003 cannot stand legal scrutiny and is liable to be set aside. 6. For the reasons discussed, the writ petition is allowed and by a writ of certiorari order No. 137/2003 dated 30th January 2003, quashed. However, respondents are at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. The respondents shall take decision in the matter within 08 weeks from the date copy of order is made available/served on respondent. In the event the respondents decide not to proceed in the matter, the respondents shall allow the petitioner to resume his duty and settle the intervening period in accordance with rules. 7. Disposed of.