Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 762 (JK)

Mohd. Iqbal Shan v. State of J&K & Ors.

2012-12-13

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
This petition is on the dockets of the Court for the last more than ten years despite of the fact that only a trivial issue is involved in this petition. 2. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in FIR No.146/1993 registered at Police Station Chenani and was dismissed from service vide order dated 21.11.1993. The concerned authority after noticing a technical defect in the said order passed a fresh order vide No.222 of 1994 dated 03.03.1994 dismissing the petitioner from service with effect from 21.11.1993. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner questioned the same by the medium of SWP No.1649/1996. The Writ Court while quashing the order of dismissal allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 18.08.1998. The respondents were given liberty to hold inquiry against the petitioner and the period from the date of his dismissal till final order was kept subject to the outcome of such inquiry. It was further held that unless the petitioner is reinstated, he would be deemed to be under suspension. 3. It appears that the respondents conducted the inquiry. During the pendency of inquiry, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges in the aforementioned criminal case by the Court of competent jurisdiction vide judgment dated 19.03.2001. Thereafter, respondent no.6 though vide Order No.27 of 2002 dated 07.01.2002 reinstated the petitioner into service with immediate effect, but ordered for forfeiture of his three annual increments with effect from the date next falls due to him. Moreso, the period of dismissal with effect from 21.11.1993 to 30.05.1999 was treated as diesnon on the basis of no work no wages, despite of the fact that he has been acquitted of the charges by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has questioned the same by the medium of present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The impugned order on the face of it is not in accordance with the mandate of Regulation 359(2) of Police Manual. In terms of the said mandate, before imposing any punishment, the competent authority has to give a notice and is to be heard. The said procedure has not been followed in the instant case. 5. The impugned order on the face of it is not in accordance with the mandate of Regulation 359(2) of Police Manual. In terms of the said mandate, before imposing any punishment, the competent authority has to give a notice and is to be heard. The said procedure has not been followed in the instant case. The impugned order is worse on the ground that the competent authority did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner had already been acquitted of the charges by the Court of competent jurisdiction. In the given circumstances as well as keeping in view the fact that this case is pending on the dockets of this Court for the last more than ten years, it would not be proper to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry again in terms of Regulation 359(2) of Police Manual. 6. Therefore, while allowing the writ petition, the impugned order so far as it relates to treating the period of dismissal with effect from 21.11.1993 to 30.05.1999 as diesnon, is hereby quashed. It is further held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any salary with effect from 21.11.1993 to 30.05.1999, but, the said period shall qualify for all other service benefits. So far as it relates to forfeiture of three annual increments, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before the Sr. Superintendent of Police concerned, who shall consider the case of petitioner sympathetically and decide the same within three months from the date a copy of the order along with representation is served upon him. Disposed of along with all connected CMPs.