1. By the medium of this writ petition, the writ petitioner has called in question Order No. 51 of 1993 dated 15.01.1993 issued by the Commandant JKAP III Bn., Ananmag, whereby he came to be removed from service on the ground of unau thorized absence. Vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2005, the writ was allowed on the ground that only Deputy Inspector General of Police is vested with the power to remove a constable from service, while as SSP/Commandant concerned has no such power. Feeling aggrieved, the State preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which came to be disposed of with liberty to the writ respondents to file review petition before the Writ Court. Accordingly, the review petition filed by the writ respondents came to be allowed vide order dated 23.08.2012. Order dated 16.09.2005 passed in the writ petition was recalled and the writ petition was taken up on Board. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties addressed their respective argu ments on the same date on merits of the writ petition and judgment in the case was reserved. 3. Petitioner has specifically averred in the writ petition that the impugned order came to be passed without hearing him and without conducting inquiry as warranted by the Police Manual. Further, it is averred in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that the petitioner fell ill as he was suffering from chronic depressive disorder with obsessive compulsive features, so he proceeded on leave and was under treatment. 4. Respondents have filed reply and contested the writ petition. 5. Admittedly, the impugned order came to be passed without conducting inquiry as warranted under Regulation 359 of Police Manual. Before taking a punitive action, a full fledged inquiry as warranted in terms of Regulation 359 of Police Manual was required to be conducted after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has not been done in the instant case. 6. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed with liberty to the respondents to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in terms of Regulation 359 of Police Manual within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served upon them.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed with liberty to the respondents to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in terms of Regulation 359 of Police Manual within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is served upon them. The period of absence till today is kept subject to the outcome of such enquiry. It goes without saying that if the inquiry is not held within the period allowed, in that event the petitioner would be allowed to join his duties but he would not be entitled to salary for the period of absence and the said period shall also not qualify for any other service benefit. Disposed of along with all CMPS.