1. Challenge under the writ petition is to the order No. 374 of 2008 dated September 23, 2008 passed by Superintendent of Police, P D Handwara-respondent No. 5 whereby the petitioner came to be discharged from his services with effect from August 21, 2007 on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Respondents have failed to file counter, thus, the averments contained in the writ petition have remained unrebutted. 3. The short question involved in the writ petition is whether the Superintendent of Police, Handwara was within his competence to pass the order of discharge in terms of Regulation 187 of Police Manual. It is apt to reproduce Regulation 187 here in below: "DISCHARGE OF INEFFICIENTS:-(1) A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrollment." 4. The plain reading of the said Regulation reveals that it can be pressed into service only when the official is on probation and if he is unlikely to prove an efficient officer. Admittedly, the petitioner was not on probation because he came to be appointed on December 21, 2000 and was a confirmed police constable and had seven years of experience at his back. Thus, the Regulation is not attracted in case of the petitioner. The impugned order on the face of it is stigmatic, even otherwise, enquiry was required to be conducted. The respondent No. 5 had to conduct regular enquiry in terms of Regulation 359 of Police Manual. That too has not been done. 5. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to quash the impugned order, however, with liberty to the respondents to conduct regular enquiry within three months from the date copy of this order is served upon them. The period for which petitioner remained absent till today, shall remain subject to outcome of such inquiry. However, he will not be entitled for any pay, during the said period, in case inquiry is not conducted but that period shall qualify for other service benefits. 6. Disposed of.