JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner herein this petition beseeches for the grant of the following relief’s in his favour: (a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing Order No. 1854 of 2003 dated 02.06.2003 issued by the respondent No.2 by virtue of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.11.1999. (b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back into service and treat him as on duty w.e.f the date he was dismissed and grant him all retrospective consequential benefits including that of arrears of salary, allowance, promotion and all other consequential benefits to which the petitioner is otherwise legally entitled to. 2. The background facts under the cover of which, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this court in granting the aforesaid relief’s in his favour are that the petitioner while serving the Jammu and Kashmir Police Organization in the valley of Kashmir in the peak of militancy and turmoil in which the valley of Kashmir was engulfed, effectively discharged his duty and played a key-roll in breaking the backbone of the militants. The petitioner was known in the police organization for his honesty and devotion. He was looking after the security and was protecting the integrity of the Country. His performance was appreciated by his superiors. He was on the hit list and the hate list of the militants, who made it an endeavor to see that he is eliminated and put to the death. They could not succeed in harming the petitioner physically. However, he was wrongly and falsely implicated in the case of an alleged custodial death of three persons, as a consequence of which two FIRs bearing Nos. 80/1999 and 31/1999 were registered against the petitioner at Police Stations Nageen, Srinagar and Sheri Baramulla, respectively for the alleged custodial killing of three persons. He was not aware about the registration of the cases against him in view of his continuous ailment for which he had to be treated outside the State of J&K. After his recovery, he came to know in the year 2003 that certain vested interests have in his absence manipulated and maneuvered to get him involved and implicated in the false and frivolous cases. The petitioner at that moment of time was facing threat from two different sources, firstly, from the vested interests, who were making attempts to liquidate him and secondly, at the hands of the police authorities, who had registered false and frivolous cases against him. In these circumstances, he thought it fit and expedient to stay away from his home town to avoid physical harm to his person. The threat perception of the petitioner is fully substantiated from a communication of the Superintendent of Police, Central Jail, Srinagar, addressed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar by which the learned Judge was informed that a large number of PSA detenues and under trials involved in the cases of militancy as well as foreign mercenaries are lodged in Central Jail, Srinagar, therefore, the petitioner be shifted to Sub Jail Reasi or District Jail Leh as proposed by the IGP Prisons. The co-accused police personnel with the petitioner facing trial for the custodial killings were acquitted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, after a long drawn trial that took almost nine years to reach to its logical conclusion. After their acquittal, the petitioner approached the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. He contested the charges leveled against him and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the petitioner also from the aforesaid false and frivolous cases of custodial killings vide his judgment dated 16.05.2008, a copy of which is attached to the file. After his acquittal, the petitioner approached the respondents for allowing him to resume his duties. At the first instance, the petitioner was not allowed to resume his duties despite submission of a representation dated 22.08.2008, a copy of which is attached to the file. Finally the respondents informed the petitioner that his services have already been terminated way back in the year 2003 vide PHQ Order No.1854 of 2003 dated 02.06.2003 w.e.f. 27.11.1999. The petitioner came to know about this order only after 22.07.2008 when he submitted a representation before the competent authority. Prior to this date, the order impugned was never served on him. The respondents kept it a closely guarded secret so as to ensure that he is not in a position to challenge their illegal action of terminating him from his service before any forum. Prior to this date, the order impugned was never served on him. The respondents kept it a closely guarded secret so as to ensure that he is not in a position to challenge their illegal action of terminating him from his service before any forum. The order of the termination of the service of the petitioner, impugned in the writ petition, is totally illegal, arbitrary, violative of the service rules and the fundamental rights of the petitioner. No opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to the petitioner before passing the order impugned by the respondents. Since the termination of service is a harsh punishment, therefore, the respondents were obliged under law to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before terminating his services vide the order impugned. Neither any opportunity of being heard nor any notice was either issued or served upon the petitioner at any point of time by the respondents. The order of terminating him from the service was passed behind his back. In this way, he has been condemned unheard and the respondents in doing so, have violated the principles of the natural justice with impunity. 3. The petitioner has proceeded to state that neither any enquiry as mandated by the provisions of law was ever held in the matter nor was he at any point of time associated with any such enquiry. Therefore, the order impugned has been passed by the respondents in a totally illegal and mechanical manner. The petitioner further states that the respondents were quite aware of the fact that the petitioner was suffering from serious ailments and was away from his hometown in connection with his treatment. However, the respondents in order to cause prejudice to him, published the notices in the local newspapers of Kashmir valley having a very thin rather negligible circulation. No notice was ever served upon the petitioner by the respondents at his last known address which was available with the respondents. The petitioner has further stated that he served the department for a period of 25 years and during this period no complaint of any kind either against his work or his conduct was received by the department. He was awarded a bundle of commendation certificates and cash awards. The petitioner has further stated that he served the department for a period of 25 years and during this period no complaint of any kind either against his work or his conduct was received by the department. He was awarded a bundle of commendation certificates and cash awards. Because of his extra meritorious service, he was promoted out of turn on officiating basis to the post of Dy.S.P. This speaks volumes about his performance in the department, but the respondents at the fag end of his career have made a vain bid to spoil his career by passing the order impugned thereby terminating his service from the department. The respondents did not issue any show cause notice to the petitioner specifying the quantum of punishment to be imposed on him for his alleged unauthorized absence from duty in reference to the enquiry report. Although some notices requiring the petitioner to resume his duties are alleged to have been issued by the respondents, yet the notice with regard to the proposed punishment of dismissal from service has not been issued to him at any point of time and as such the respondents have not only failed to comply with the provisions of principles of natural justice, but have also violated the service regulations. The order impugned is, therefore, liable to be quashed and is bad in the eyes of law. On the facts and circumstances detailed above, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this court in granting him the relief’s aforesaid. 4. The respondents have failed to file their reply/counter to the petition of the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered. 6. What needs to be stated at the outset is that the respondents have not rebutted the pleadings of the petitioner inasmuch as they have not filed their reply/counter to the petition of the petitioner. On the face of such an eventuality the respondents have failed to rebut the pleadings of the petitioner. The respondents have not spelt out the circumstances under which they failed to controvert the pleadings of the petitioner or to produce the record relating to any enquiry under the garb of which the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from his service was passed. The respondents have not spelt out the circumstances under which they failed to controvert the pleadings of the petitioner or to produce the record relating to any enquiry under the garb of which the order of the dismissal of the petitioner from his service was passed. If a response to the pleadings is required and the allegation are not denied the inference that can be drawn is that the same are admitted to be correct and on this score alone the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 7. Looking at the instant case from the other perspective, the co-accused with the petitioner who were placed under suspension, were re-instated by the respondents vide order No. 1411 of 2015 dated 06.06.2015 on the grounds detailed below: 01. That delinquent officials namely (01) Aejaz-ud-din No. 716/S EXK-972976 (02), Constable Mushtaq Ahmed No. 3141/S, EXK-977813 (03) Constable Zakir Hussain No. 2897/S, EXK-962169 and (04) Constable Mohammad Shafi No. 2458/S EXK-891698 are exonerated from the charges leveled against them as nothing incriminating has come to fore during the course of enquiry proceedings conducted by the then Superintendent of Police Hazaratbal and Superintendent of Police Hqrs. 02. That the period of their lodgment w.e.f from 14/11/1999 to 31/12/2003 be treated as on duty. 03. That the period of suspension with effect from the dates the delinquent officials were placed under suspension be treated as on duty subject to attendance from concern quarters. 04. That the impact of the court verdict passed if any in acquittal appeal pending before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K, Jammu in the instant case upon the instant order shall be taken into account at the relevant point of time depending upon the nature of the observations made by the concerned court. This order will be subject to the outcome of the orders/judgment of Hon’ble high court of J&K Jammu passed in acquittal appeal pending against the delinquent official. 8. The appeal about which a mention has been made in the order cited above, has been decided by a Division Bench of this High Court vide order dated 30.10.2017, the operative portion of which reads as under : “The trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. 8. The appeal about which a mention has been made in the order cited above, has been decided by a Division Bench of this High Court vide order dated 30.10.2017, the operative portion of which reads as under : “The trial Court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial Court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse. (See Ram Saroop and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar vs. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra pradhan vs. State of Orissa (2015) 11 SCC 124 . From perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial Court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in these acquittal appeals is made out. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.” 9. Since the co-accused who were inculpated in the crime with the petitioner were reinstated, therefore, there was no reason for the respondents to discriminate the petitioner invidiously. The case of the petitioner could not have been treated as a separate, single, solitary and the onliest entity. His claim had also to be tested and determined on the same parameters as were evolved in the case of the co-accused with him, which the respondents have failed to do. 10. Testing the case of the petitioner on the other parameters, the respondents have failed to show it before the court that in dismissing the petitioner, they adhered to the rules and the regulations to which the petitioner is subject to, namely, J&K Police Manual, wherein a full-fledged mechanism is prescribed for conducting and holding of departmental enquiries. Rule 334 of the Police Manual provides that no police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as prescribed in these rules. In terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 334, dismissal (bar to re-employment in Government service) has been held to be a major punishment. Rule 334 of the Police Manual provides that no police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as prescribed in these rules. In terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 334, dismissal (bar to re-employment in Government service) has been held to be a major punishment. Rule 337 envisages that dismissal shall be awarded only for the acts of misconduct, for example, fraud, dishonesty, corruption and all the offences involving moral disgrace as the cumulative effect of the continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness of police service. Rule 359 which is of fundamental importance in the controversy provides the procedure for holding of departmental inquiries. Perusal of the material on record would reveal that neither any charge sheet nor any show cause notice has been issued or produced before this Court in order to derive satisfaction on the count that the respondents have adhered to the rules stipulated above. The enquiry had to be conducted in line and in tune with the provisions of the Police Manual. The charge sheet/show cause notice and the record of the enquiry, if any, conducted have neither been produced before this Court nor has it been stated in any form. 11. The petitioner as can be seen has been dismissed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence. Section 126(2) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 311 Constitution of India contemplate conveying of specific charges to the delinquent and to provide him a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and his removal from the service can be directed after holding an enquiry in the matter. Section 126(2) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, provides an additional safeguard to the delinquent in the shape of the service of show cause notice to him regarding the proposed punishment to be imposed and the said section is reproduced below for the convenience of the ready reference: “126(2): No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removal or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose on him any such penalty, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply- (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry: or (c) Where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.” 12. The principles of natural justice are embedded in the Constitution of India. Hon’ble Justice Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, Supreme Court of India (retired) has made a succinct analysis of the basic and fundamental principles of natural justice in her inaugural lecture in the years’ orientation and training for the newly members to the Income Tax Tribunal, the relevant extracts of which are detailed below:- “The principles of natural justice have evolved under common law as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the State. As the State power have increased, taking within their ambit not just the power of governance but also activities in areas such as commerce, industry, communications and the like, it has become increasingly necessary to ensure that these powers are exercised in a just and fair manner. There is only one more principle that has slowly taken root as a part of natural justice. This is the principle that every decision must contain reasons for the decision. There is only one more principle that has slowly taken root as a part of natural justice. This is the principle that every decision must contain reasons for the decision. Reasons may be elaborate or may be brief. But these are considered necessary to ensure fair decision making. Unless the laws are fair and are fairly implemented, there cannot be justice in the true sense. There are several refinements or facets to these principles which have evolved as a result of extensive case law dealing with an amazing variety of circumstances. Many of these refinements or variations have evolved in cases dealing with service matters-selection of candidates, disciplinary enquiries, dismissal or discharge of employees and so on. The various aspects of the rules of natural justice have been discussed in Menika Gandhi’s case 1978 (1) SCC 248 . Basically there are two norms which decision making bodies must follow, both are expressed in latin maxims, but are in essence very simple principles, audi alteram partem, which means that the person concerned must be heard before a decision is taken; and the second principle is Nemojudex In Causa Sua which means a person will not judge a case in which he is himself interested. Recently a third principle has also been added which is in plane English because its more recent development. It says that the decision must give reasons.” 13. The procedure as envisaged under section 126(2) of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir does not appear to have been followed in the case. It provides that a reasonable opportunity of making a representation on the penalty proposed is to be given to the delinquent in cases where dismissal, reduction or removal is directed. Regulation 359 (2) supra, makes it mandatory to issue a show cause notice to the delinquent officer on the penalty proposed. This procedure does not appear to have been followed. The second show cause notice specifying the proposed penalty to be imposed on the petitioner also does not appear to have been issued in the mater so as to enable the petitioner to make an effective representation in terms of Section 126(2) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and the Regulation aforesaid. The impugned order is liable to be quashed on this count also. 14. The impugned order is liable to be quashed on this count also. 14. It will be pertinent to note that the procedure laid down by Regulation 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual has to be followed both in rigor and vigor in every departmental enquiry initiated against a police officer as it is mandatory in character. One of the limbs of this procedure is that the enquiry officer has to record the statement of the delinquent officer, summarize the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give full notice of the circumstances to the delinquent in regard to which the evidence is to be recorded and if the delinquent does not plead guilty then the evidence of departmental has to be recorded in which the delinquent has to be given a full and fair opportunity of the cross-examination of the witnesses. No record relating to any enquiry has been produced before this Court. There is not even an iota of evidence on record as would reveal that any charge has been framed against the petitioner and it has been proved by the established mechanism laid down under the rules or by any amount of evidence. The order of the dismissal of the petitioner is liable to be set aside on this score also as it is not substantiated by any reason. 15. Viewed in the context of what has been said and done above, I find that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, cannot stand. The conduct of a denovo enquiry under the facts and circumstances of the case where a lot of water has flown down the River Tawi and the Sword of Damocles has been kept hanging high on the head of the petitioner during the period spreading over more than a decade by now will not serve any purpose when similarly circumstances police personnel have already been reinstated. Therefore, the order of the dismissal of the petitioner dated 02.06.2003, issued by the respondents No.2 is quashed, as a consequence of which the petitioner is directed to be reinstated and taken into service. The respondents shall accord consideration to the payment of the arrears of salary/allowances in favour of the petitioner from the date of his dismissal upto his reinstatement in service. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of along with the connected MPs.