Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1082 (JK)

Sardari Lal v. State of J&K

2017-12-21

ALOK ARADHE

body2017
JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner, inter-alia, seeks writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 17.03.2010 issued by respondent No. 3-Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone, Jammu, by which revision petition preferred by the petitioner against order dated 19.12.2009 has been rejected. The petitioner further seeks quashment of departmental inquiry conducted by respondent No. 6 held in flagrant violation of procedure prescribed in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules. The petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Police Department on 01.01.1984. In the year 1993, one Shadi Lal who was Numberdar of Village Shardani (Doda) got killed in a militant attack. Thereupon, the police registered an FIR bearing No. 9/1993 and challan was produced in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah. Thereafter, the proceedings were transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda. In the charge-sheet the names of six persons including the petitioner were included. Thereupon, the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 1996 on the ground of involvement in a criminal case. The petitioner remained under suspension till he was removed from service vide order dated 12.07.2001. The petitioner along with other accused was acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/452/34 RPC & 3/25 Arms Act vide order dated 30.10.2003. Being aggrieved, the State preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.2004. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet in the year 2000. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report and vide order dated 12.07.2001 penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2009 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Doda-Kishtwar- Ramban Range. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the order dated 19.12.2009, which was also rejected. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the provisions of Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual have not been complied with inasmuch as the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the inquiry report. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the provisions of Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual have not been complied with inasmuch as the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of the inquiry report. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Ali Mohd. Lone vs. State and Others, 2012 (4) JKJ 96 , On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out from the record as to whether copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, as per Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual, the disciplinary authority was under an obligation to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , has held that whenever the service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the inquiry officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment. The aforesaid mandatory requirement is statutorily recognized in the form of Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual. The aforesaid mandatory requirement admittedly has not been followed in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the inquiry report suffers from the procedural infirmity. The orders impugned, accordingly, quashed. However a liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh after supplying copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, if so advised. In case the petitioner has not been paid the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.