1. Petitioner vide PHQ order No. 1284/85 dated 06.12.1985 was appointed as Constable-Driver in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department. The Senior Superintendent of Police—respondent No. 4 in the petition, on 3rd July, 2002 received a communication No. SPS/C1t-21/02/3624 dated 03.07.2002 of the even date levelling allegation of misuse of Police wireless set, attached with Flying Squad No. 9 by the petitioner, on 26th May, 2002. 2. The respondent No. 2 on receipt of the aforesaid report vide order No. 1019/2002 dated 31.07.2002 directed a regular enquiry into the matter. The petitioner denied the charge, insisting that though wireless set was fixed in the Police vehicle driven by him, yet the Wireless Operator was not allotted to the Flying Squad to operate the set nor was any order or direction issued, identifying the person competent to operate the set. The petitioner referring to his unblemished service carrier stretching over a period of eighteen years, denied that he on 26.05.2002 at 1.45 P.M used vulgar/unparliamentarily language, while operating the wireless set or transmitted such content on the wireless. However, on enquiry the charges were proved against the petitioner and he was asked to submit his reply. 3. The respondent no. 4 on 10th November 2002 served a notice on the petitioner required him to show cause why major punishment, such as dismissal from service should not be imposed on the petitioner. 4. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No. 4, reiterated his stand that the charge levelled was without any substance. However, the respondent No. 4 unimpressed by the explanation tendered by the petitioner vide order No. 1708 of 2002 dated 22.11.2002, imposed the punishment of reduction in rank and fixation of his pay in the grade of Rs. 2750-70-4400. 5. The petitioner questions the order reducing him in rank on the grounds that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 359 of Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960. The evidence recorded by the enquiry officer, according to the petitioner did not establish the allegations levelled against him and the conclusion drawn and the charge prepared by the enquiry officer, therefore, were based on no evidence. The procedure laid down in Rule 359 Sub Rule 5,6 and 7 according to the petitioner, was observed in breach. 6. The evidence recorded by the enquiry officer, according to the petitioner did not establish the allegations levelled against him and the conclusion drawn and the charge prepared by the enquiry officer, therefore, were based on no evidence. The procedure laid down in Rule 359 Sub Rule 5,6 and 7 according to the petitioner, was observed in breach. 6. The order in question is next challenged on the ground that at the time notice was served on the petitioner and he required to show cause against imposition of the maximum punishment, the copies of the material collected by the enquiry officer was not handed over to the petitioner so as to enable him to show cause against the proposed punishment. The impugned order is said to be based on no evidence and therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. The whole case according to the petitioner was outcome of the conspiracy hatched by the respondent No. 4 with SHO Police Station Shergari to teach the petitioner a lesson for his raising voice against harassment of common people by said Police Officer. 8. The writ petition is opposed on the grounds that the petitioner raises disputed questions of fact that cannot be looked into and dealt with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The respondents in their reply deny all the factual averments made in the petition. It is insisted that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with rules and that the petitioner was granted fair opportunity to project his case before the enquiry officer and thereafter given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. 9. I have gone through the pleadings as also the record made available by learned Senior Advocate General and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. The order reducing the petitioner from the rank of Selection grade Constable to that of Constable is primarily questioned in this petition on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in strict accordance with procedure laid down under Rule 359 Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960. Having regard to the challenge thrown to the impugned order, it becomes necessary to give a closer look to Rule 359 to find out whether the procedure laid down thereunder has been followed in the present case. 11. Having regard to the challenge thrown to the impugned order, it becomes necessary to give a closer look to Rule 359 to find out whether the procedure laid down thereunder has been followed in the present case. 11. The enquiry in terms of aforesaid Rule is to proceed in the following manner:- i) The enquiry as far as possible is to be conducted by an officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon the accused officer. ii) The officer conducting the enquiry is to summon the accused officer and record and read out to him a statement summarising the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. iii) If the accused officer admits the misconduct alleged against him, the enquiry officer conducting the enquiry may proceed to record a final order, if it is within his power to do so, or forward the finding to an officer empowered to decide the case. iv) If the accused officer does not admit the misconduct, the officer conducting the enquiry is to proceed to record such evidence oral or documentary in proof of the accusation as is available and necessary to support the charge and if possible to examine the witnesses in presence of the accused officer and give him opportunity to cross-examine them. v) The officer conducting the enquiry, on going through the evidence recorded if satisfied that the allegations are not substantiated, is to discharge the accused officer or if he is not empowered to punish him to recommended his discharge to the officer so empowered. v) The officer conducting the enquiry, on going through the evidence recorded if satisfied that the allegations are not substantiated, is to discharge the accused officer or if he is not empowered to punish him to recommended his discharge to the officer so empowered. vi) The officer conducting the enquiry, on going through the evidence, if satisfied that the allegations stand substantiated by the evidence, is to proceed to frame a formal charge or charges in writing, explain them to the accused officer and call upon him to answer them, vii) The accused officer at the time he is formally charged of misconduct is to be asked to state defence witnesses whom he proposes to call and give him not exceeding 48 hours to submit a list of such witnesses with the summary of facts as to which they are to testifying, viii) The enquiry officer is to record the statement of those witnesses whom he decides to admit in presence of the accused and allow him to address questions to them and to record answers to the questions. The enquiry officer is to permit the accused officer to file documentary evidence and he is so desires to have access to such files and papers as the enquiry officer may permit. ix) The enquiry officer after conclusion of evidence or at any stage, thereafter before, following the framing of charge, is to ask the accused officer to state his own answer to the charge and permit him to file written statement and also to make an oral statement in answer to all questions which the enquiry officer conducting the enquiry, may see fit, to put to him arising out of the charge, the recorded evidence or his own written statement. The officer conducting the enquiry is thereafter to proceed and to pass order of acquittal or punishment if empowered to do so or if not so empowered to forward his finding and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. x) Where the punishment proposed to be awarded is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the punishment may be awarded by the appointing authority of the accused officer including the officer superior in rank, of such authority. x) Where the punishment proposed to be awarded is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the punishment may be awarded by the appointing authority of the accused officer including the officer superior in rank, of such authority. xi) Whether the punishment proposed to be imposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the accused officer is to be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause, orally and also in writing against the punishment proposed unless the accused officer is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank on the ground of his conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or in the opinion of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove an officer or reduce him in rank for the reasons to be recorded in written, it is not reasonable practicable to give to such person an opportunity of showing cause or where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to give the accused officer such an opportunity. 12. Let us now proceed to see from the record made available by learned Senior Additional Advocate General, whether the enquiry in the present case has been conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960. 13. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner while posted as Constable-Driver with the Flying Squad No. 9 on 26th May, 2002 between 1.45 PM to 2.35 PM, allegedly misused the wireless set bearing No. Delta 18 by transmitting filthy, abusive and un-parliamentary language on the wireless set, the petitioner doing so disrupted the wireless communication. The abusive language was picked upon by Control Communication Centre 51. The experts sitting in the communication control room traced the abusive and un-parliamentary language to wireless Delta 18 fitted in the vehicle under control of the petitioner. The experts after calling all the wireless stations contracted the petitioner who according to the experts felt ashamed of his conduct and requested that the lapse be condoned. 14. The Superintendent of Police, Srinagar vide his letter No. SPS/CLT/2269 dated 11.06.2002, asked for shifting of the petitioner and thereafter, vide No. SPS/CLT/21/2002/3624 dated 3rd July, 2002 reported the matter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar after the report regarding the occurrence was received from SHO Police Station Shergari vide No. 1915/5A/SH dated 02.07.2002. 15. 14. The Superintendent of Police, Srinagar vide his letter No. SPS/CLT/2269 dated 11.06.2002, asked for shifting of the petitioner and thereafter, vide No. SPS/CLT/21/2002/3624 dated 3rd July, 2002 reported the matter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar after the report regarding the occurrence was received from SHO Police Station Shergari vide No. 1915/5A/SH dated 02.07.2002. 15. The Senior Superintendent of Police vide Order No. 1019 of 2002 dated 31.07.2002, recorded his satisfaction that prima facie there was substance in the allegation and a formal departmental enquiry was required, directed an enquiry in the matter to be conducted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar. 16. The petitioner was summoned by the officer conducting enquiry and the statement summarising the alleged misconduct, titled as "Khulasa Qasurwari" recorded and read over to the petitioner. The petitioner was asked whether he admitted the alleged misconduct. The petitioner did not admit that he had indulged in alleged misconduct. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, proceeded to the recorded evidence in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. However, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity, except as regards Shri Abdul Rashid, ASI, posted in Communication Control Room Police Control Room, Srinagar. The petitioner put his signature on the statements of each and every witnesses recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry. 17. The Enquiry Officer after recording the evidence in presence of the petitioner and allowing the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses went through the evidence so recorded and on perusal of the evidence on 22.02.2002 framed a formal charge styled ate "Fard Ilzam" against the petitioner. The charge was read over and explained to the petitioner and the petitioner given an opportunity to adduce evidence oral as well as in writing in his defence within seven days from the date the charge was framed. 18. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence in his defence. The petitioner, however, submitted a written statement wherein the petitioner while denying the occurrence attributed to him, invited attention of the disciplinary authority to his unblemished career of 18 years and that he had not come to adverse notice of his officers during three years he remained attached with the Flying Squad. The petitioner, however, submitted a written statement wherein the petitioner while denying the occurrence attributed to him, invited attention of the disciplinary authority to his unblemished career of 18 years and that he had not come to adverse notice of his officers during three years he remained attached with the Flying Squad. The petitioner while admitting that wireless set Delta 18 fitted in the vehicle No. JK01E-1993 attached with Flying Squad No. 9 was under his control, pointed out that a wireless operator was not allotted to the vehicle nor was the petitioner an expert in operating the wireless set. 19. The disciplinary authority on going through the record including the reply/written statement submitted by the petitioner on 5th November, 2002 served show cause notice No. Estt/02/1359-60 on the petitioner requiring him to show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner was given an option to file written reply to the show cause notice by or before 15th November, 2002. The copy of the charge sheet, statements of the witnesses were handed over to the petitioner against proper receipt after framing of the charge sheet. The petitioner did not appear or file any written statement in response to the show cause notice dated 10.11.2002. The respondent, accordingly, vide order No. 1708 of 2002 dated 22nd November, 2002 reduced the petitioner from the rank of Selection Grade Constable to Constable, in the pay scale of Rs. 2750-70-4400. He was, however, held eligible for promotion in accordance with the rules and the punishment was directed to operate as per Rule 340 (1) (2) (a) Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules. It is pertinent to point out that though the disciplinary authority in the show cause notice proposed to award major punishment like dismissal, the authority finally decided to award a lesser punishment i.e. reduction in rank. 20. The perusal of record would, therefore, show that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure laid under Rule 359 J&K Police Rules, 1960. The officer conducting enquiry appears to have been alive to the spirit and mandate of the Rule 359 Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960 and to have ensured that all procedural safeguards available to the petitioner, were made adhered to and the procedure mapped out in Rule 359 Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960 followed in letter and spirit. The officer conducting enquiry appears to have been alive to the spirit and mandate of the Rule 359 Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960 and to have ensured that all procedural safeguards available to the petitioner, were made adhered to and the procedure mapped out in Rule 359 Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960 followed in letter and spirit. The petitioner, therefore, cannot have any grievance against the order impugned in the petition on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Rules was not adhered to and followed by the officer conducting the enquiry. 21. The plea that, even if, the procedure was followed in letter and spirit the findings returned by the officer conducting the enquiry were perverse, inasmuch as the findings recorded were based on no evidence is without merit. 22. The petitioner also questions the impugned order and the punishment awarded on the ground of proportionality. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that, even if, officer conducting the enquiry is assumed to have followed the prescribed procedure while conducting the enquiry in question, still the punishment awarded cannot be said to be commensurate with the misconduct alleged. It is argued that having regard to the nature of misconduct alleged against the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have been left with the lenient punishments like reprimand or fine. The argument advanced does not sound convincing. The petitioner is a member of disciplinary force and the duty assigned to him at the time of alleged misconduct was of utmost importance. The petitioner disrupted the police communication system for 40 minutes and during the said interval transmitted un-parliamentary and abusive material through the wireless set under his control. The Tele Communication System is back bone of a modern police force. It has key role in monitoring law and order situation timely crime detection and rapid police deployment to the problem area. The organization can ill-afford to have official amongst its ranks who is insensitive to the importance of an electronic communication gadget entrusted to him. A state of art communication system and its efficient use can save many accidents that if not prevented in time may wreck havoc and result in loss to life and property. The misconduct proved against the petitioner, therefore, cannot be downplayed as a minor lapse warranting minor punishment. 23. A state of art communication system and its efficient use can save many accidents that if not prevented in time may wreck havoc and result in loss to life and property. The misconduct proved against the petitioner, therefore, cannot be downplayed as a minor lapse warranting minor punishment. 23. There can be no disagreement that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot assume the role of Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence recorded during enquiry. However, the Court would not desist from lifting the veil and go to the evidence recorded by the officer conducting enquiry where the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are alleged to be based on no evidence or to be perverse. In the case in hand, the enquiry officer does not appear to have lost sight of his duty to make impartial, objective and dispassionate appraisal of the material collected during enquiry, while returning this findings. The officer conducting the enquiry recorded statements of Inspector Suhail Reshi, Constable Mohd. Muzaffar, Constable Nissar Ahmad, and ASI Abdul Rashid and had also available to him Report No. 27 dated 26th May, 2002 P/S Shaheed Gunj. The evidence tested at the anvil of cross examination established that wireless Delta 18 at the time of alleged occurrence was under control of the petitioner; that the petitioner used to operate the wireless set and that no person other than the petitioner had access to the wireless Delta 18 at the time of occurrence. The enquiry, therefore, cannot be termed as an eye wash and the finding returned, as perverse, as is sought to be projected by learned counsel for the petitioner. 24. For the reasons discussed, I do not find merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The record be returned to the respondents. 25. No order as to costs.