JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Peer Bashir Ahmad-respondent herein, a Constable Driver in J & K Police Department (SOG), aggrieved with order No. 694 of 2001 dated 15th June 2002, whereby he was discharged from service, approached Writ Court with writ petition registered as SWP No. 1111/2002. He on grounds pleaded in petition, sought quashment of order impugned in petition as also writ of mandamus, commanding present appellants to decide statutory appeal filed by him on 30th July 2002, against order impugned in the petition. Writ Court allowed writ petition on 20th July 2009, quashed order No. 694 of 2001 dated 15th June 2002, giving liberty to appellants to conduct enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. Period of discharge was directed to be dealt with having regard to outcome of enquiry, if any, conducted. Writ Court judgment is assailed in Letters Patent Appeal on hand on grounds detailed in memo of appeal. 2. Heard and considered. 3. We are in agreement with view taken by learned Writ Court that discharge order was stigmatic in character and therefore enquiry in terms of Rule 359, J & K Police Rules, 1960, was called for before imposing penalty, if any, warranted having regard to outcome of enquiry so conducted. It however, escaped attention of Writ Court that enquiry, as stated in reply to writ petition, was conducted and the order impugned in writ petition was passed only on report of Enquiry officer. 4. Appellants, conscious that allegations levelled against respondent, warranted enquiry wherein respondent was to be given opportunity to put forth his stand, decided not to fall back on Rule 187, J & K Police Rules. It is pertinent to point out that police constable can be discharged in terms of Rule 187 during period of three years from the date of appointment, in case competent authority is of opinion that Constable on probation is not to prove a good police officer. In such case no enquiry is required to be conducted. 5. Where a Constable is proposed to be discharged not only on the ground laid down in Rule 187, but on further ground(s) stigmatic in character, a full-fledged enquiry contemplated under Rule 359, J & K Police Rules, is mandatorily to be conducted against erring official. In such case no enquiry is required to be conducted. 5. Where a Constable is proposed to be discharged not only on the ground laid down in Rule 187, but on further ground(s) stigmatic in character, a full-fledged enquiry contemplated under Rule 359, J & K Police Rules, is mandatorily to be conducted against erring official. It is, therefore, to be seen whether enquiry conducted in the present case satisfied all requirements laid down under Rule 459, J & K Police Rules. 6. It would be worthwhile to map out mode and method of enquiry laid down under Rules. The steps required to be mandatorily taken may be enumerated as under: i. Whenever a definite complaint of misconduct is received against a Police officer, the officer receiving complaint is to immediately record statements, if any, in support of complaint and through usual channels forward the complaint with the statements, if any, to Superintendent of Police or other gazetted officer under whose immediate control the officer, receiving complaint, is serving. The police or other officer, if satisfied that a prima facie case for enquiry is made out, is to entrust enquiry as far as possible to a Gazetted Officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon delinquent officer. ii. The officer, conducting enquiry, is to summon delinquent police officer, read out to him statements summarising alleged misconduct so as to give notice to such police officer of the circumstance in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. In case delinquent police officer admits misconduct, alleged against him, the officer, conducting enquiry, may then and there record a final order if it is within his power to do so or forward the matter to an officer empowered to pass a final order. iii. If delinquent police officer does not admit alleged misconduct, enquiry officer is required to record such evidence oral and documentary in proof of accusation as is available and necessary to support the charge. Whenever possible, witnesses are to be examined in presence of delinquent police officer and such officer given opportunity to examine witnesses, unless he is of opinion that presence of witness cannot be secured without undue delay and expense or inconvenience. In later case statement of witnesses recorded and attested by Magistrate, may be considered though not recorded in presence of delinquent officer and without opportunity to cross examine witness, to such officer. iv. In later case statement of witnesses recorded and attested by Magistrate, may be considered though not recorded in presence of delinquent officer and without opportunity to cross examine witness, to such officer. iv. When evidence is recorded and it is found not to substantiate accusation or recommend his discharge to Superintendent of Police or other officer so empowered. However, if evidence collected, substantiates accusation of misconduct, the officer is to frame a formal charge/charges in writing, explain charges to the delinquent police officer and call upon him to answer the charge. v. Inquiry Officer, after charge/charges are framed in writing, explain it to delinquent officer, ask delinquent police officer to furnish list of the defence witnesses, whom he wishes to call along with summary of the facts as to which such witnesses are testified. Inquiry Officer thereafter has to record statement of defence witnesses, whom he decides to admit in presence of delinquent police officer, who is also to be allowed to address/put questions to witnesses as he may deem fit. Delinquent police officer is also to be given opportunity to file documentary evidence and in this regard to have access to official files and papers except such as form part of confidential record. Inquiry Officer has to allow delinquent police officer to make a statement in reply to charge and if he so chooses to file his written statement, Inquiry Officer, independent of option exercised by delinquent police official to file written statement, would be competent to put all such questions to him, which he may see fit to be put arising out of the charge. vi. Inquiry Officer, after delinquent police officer closes his case and answers questions, if any, put by Inquiry officer, shall pass order as may be warranted under facts and circumstances of the case or forward the case with his recommendations to an officer empowered to pass such order. However, no officer is to be dismissed or removed by an authority, subordinate to that by which he was appointed. However, no officer is to be dismissed or removed by an authority, subordinate to that by which he was appointed. vii The punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is not to be imposed unless a delinquent police officer is given a reasonable opportunity to show cause orally and also in writing against the action proposed to be taken against him unless he is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank on his conviction of criminal charge or the authority is of opinion that it is reasonably practicable to give delinquent police officer an opportunity of showing cause or where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State it is not expedient to give that officer such an opportunity. viii. The authority, competent to order dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, of delinquent police officer is not merely to give an opportunity to delinquent police officer to show cause against proposed action but provide the officer copy of enquiry report and record, so as to enable delinquent police officer to exercise his right to show cause against proposed action in a meaningful manner. 7. Perusal of enquiry record made available by learned Additional Advocate General would indicate that safeguards provided to respondent under Rule 359, have not been adhered to and prescribed procedure not followed during enquiry. To illustrate, respondent has not been allowed to participate in the proceedings at various stages, allowed an opportunity to examine witnesses in defence, nor have witnesses been examined in his absence. He has not been given opportunity to produce list of witnesses and resultantly no effort made to secure presence of such witnesses. He has not been permitted to make statement in reply to charge and to file his written statement. 8. Last of all, appellants have not issued second notice to writ petitioner, affording him opportunity to put forth his stand as regards proposed punishment. Respondent had a right to be informed about proposed penalty and afforded an opportunity to come up with his stand, so that he could make an effort to convince disciplinary authority that proposed penalty was disproportionate or that there were extenuating circumstances that would call for lesser punishment. 9. The enquiry, therefore, does not satisfy spirit and mandate of Rule 359. The order impugned in writ petition, therefore, would not stand legal scrutiny and has been rightly set-aside by the Writ Court. 9. The enquiry, therefore, does not satisfy spirit and mandate of Rule 359. The order impugned in writ petition, therefore, would not stand legal scrutiny and has been rightly set-aside by the Writ Court. 10. For the reasons discussed, we do not find any reason to take a view different from one taken by learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal does not have merit and is, therefore, dismissed. Dismissed.