Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 327 (JK)

State of J&K v. Aftaf Ahmad Khan

2019-07-04

RAJESH BINDAL, RASHID ALI DAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Bindal, J.—The State has filed the present intra-court appeal challenging the judgment of Learned Single Judge dated 10.08.2017, vide which writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed. 02. The respondent was appointed as Constable in J&K Police Force in the year 1992. On account of various disciplinary action taken against him on different occasions, various punishments were imposed. He was dismissed from the services vide order dated August 04, 1998. Order was impugned by him by filing writ petition bearing SWP No.1703/1998. It was disposed of on 23.03.2005, setting aside the order of dismissal and leaving it to the department to initiate departmental enquiry against the respondent. Thereafter he was again placed under suspension. Departmental proceedings were initiated and vide order dated 17.11.2005, respondent was discharged from the service. 03. Order was impugned by filing the SWP No. 1362/2005. The writ petition was allowed on 04.07.2008 quashing the order of discharge with the direction to consider the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer. Vide order dated 19.08.2008, the respondent was reinstated back in the service and the period of absence from 05.08.1998 to 26.04.2005 was treated as without pay. 04. The proceedings in the present case pertains to the show cause notice dated 22.04.2010 issued to the respondent in exercise of powers under Rule 363 of J&K Police Rules (for short “the Police Rules’). After affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent, he was dismissed from service vide Order No.170 of 2010 dated 01.05.2010. Appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29.06.2010. 05. For assailing the aforesaid order writ petition was filed by the respondent before this court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order. 06. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case in hand, entire record of the respondent was reviewed and it was found that from 1992 onwards, when he joined the police force he had been awarded number of punishments on account of various misconducts. He had served the department hardly for 4-5 years during his entire service of 17 years. 07. It was further submitted that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that proper departmental enquiries were conducted in terms of Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules for the series of acts of misconduct committed by the respondent. There was no violation of principles of natural justice. 07. It was further submitted that the Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that proper departmental enquiries were conducted in terms of Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules for the series of acts of misconduct committed by the respondent. There was no violation of principles of natural justice. Before passing the order respondent was afforded opportunity of hearing. Entire service record of the respondent was reviewed. Hence, there was no illegality in the action taken against him. 08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that before passing the impugned order, no enquiry was conducted by the department and action was taken only on a perusal of record. The officer was biased against the respondent. Show cause notice was issued on 22.04.2010 and the impugned order was passed just within ten days on 01.05.2010. Rule 337 of the Police Rules provides for instances where dismissal can be ordered. The ground taken against the respondent is not forming part of the Police Rules and the punishment awarded to the respondent is not commensurate with guilt proved. Article 311 of Constitution of India and Section 126 of Constitution of J&K have been violated. The order is stigmatic and same having been passed without enquiry, deserves to be set aside. 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In the case in hand, respondent filed writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated 1.5.2010 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police Srinagar and the appellate order dated 29.6.2010, passed by the Inspector General of Police Kashmir Zone, dismissing the appeal of the respondent. Order dated 1.5.2010 was passed by Deputy General of Police while reviewing the service record of the respondent. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 22.04.2010 to which the respondent replied and after consideration thereof he was dismissed from the services vide order dated 1.5.2010. 11. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent by filing SWP No. 432/2011. The stand taken by the state in the objections filed to the aforesaid petition was that the respondent was appointed as constable on 18.12.1992 and till the date of dismissal from the services i.e. 1.5.2010, in more than 17 years he had not even undergone the Basic Recruitment Training Course. Number of punishments were inflicted on him from 1994 onwards. The stand taken by the state in the objections filed to the aforesaid petition was that the respondent was appointed as constable on 18.12.1992 and till the date of dismissal from the services i.e. 1.5.2010, in more than 17 years he had not even undergone the Basic Recruitment Training Course. Number of punishments were inflicted on him from 1994 onwards. Apart from that a number of complaints have been received against the respondent regarding his rude behaviour, extortion and continued indulging in un-authorized absence, dereliction to duties. He barely served the department for a period of 4-5 years out of total 17 years. 12. Despite minor and major punishments imposed on the respondent, he did not correct himself. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 4.8.1998. The aforesaid order was impugned vide SWP No. 1703/1998. The writ petition was allowed on 23.3.2005, setting aside the order with the liberty to the department to conduct departmental enquiry. Respondent was reinstated, however, was kept under suspension. Fresh departmental enquiry was initiated. The disciplinary authority keeping in view the enquiry report discharged the respondent from the services vide order No.483 of 2005 dated 17.11.2005. The period, he remained unauthorizedly absent from duty, was treated as without pay. 13. The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent before this court by filing SWP 1363/2005. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 4.7.2008, remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority to consider the recommendations made by the enquiry officer and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter vide order dated 19.8.2008 the disciplinary authority while reviewing the service record of the respondent, noticing the grave misconduct of the respondent and observing that stern punishment of dismissal is warranted so as to weed out such undesirable elements from the police force but still keeping in mind the observations made by this court and the economic condition of the respondent, reinstated him back in service. But still he did not improve his conduct and regularly absented even thereafter. 14. The present proceedings were initiated when the Deputy Inspector General of Police was on a routine inspection of the establishment branch. Record of the respondent was perused like others. It was found that the respondent had not even undergone the Basic Recruitment Training Course and was also awarded number of major and minor punishments. There was no sign of improvement in his conduct. Record of the respondent was perused like others. It was found that the respondent had not even undergone the Basic Recruitment Training Course and was also awarded number of major and minor punishments. There was no sign of improvement in his conduct. As he was bringing bad name to the department and the respondent was unauthorizedly absent from the duty from 3.12.2009 till the issuance of show cause notice i.e. 24.04.2010, notice was issued to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. Some of his previous misconducts were noticed in the show cause notice. He responded to the same by filing the written reply. Considering his reply and taking into consideration his entire record, the competent authority vide order dated 1.5.2010, exercising powers of review and opining that he had been guilty of unauthorized absence from duty and indiscipline, which dented the image of the police department, hence, was dismissed from service. The earlier lenient view taken against the respondent had not corrected him. Unauthorized absence from duty cannot be tolerated in the police force. Relevant part of the aforesaid order is extracted below: “Briefly stated, the fact are “the delinquent came to be provisionally appointed, on probation as Constable vide DPO Srinagar’s order No. 58 of 1992 and on his prolonged absence and service misconducts he was twice discharged from service vide DPO Srinagar’s order No. 510 of 1998 dated 17.8.1998 and later vide CKR’s order No. 483 of 2005 dated 17.11.2005. Subsequently the delinquent was re-instated into service on humanitarian grounds, but in spite of such opportunities, the delinquent continued with his wayward ways and continue to be a blot on the department. The delinquent submitted written reply, by registered post (03 leaves, duly marked by undersigned, for identification) received in this office on 30.04.2010, well after the time granted to him. However, in order to provide him full opportunity, the reply has been brought on file: I have gone through the reply, so submitted (abovementioned) by the delinquent and the same is deliberated, as follows: (i) The delinquent submits that the show-cause notice is against rules, which is a figment of his own imagination. However, in order to provide him full opportunity, the reply has been brought on file: I have gone through the reply, so submitted (abovementioned) by the delinquent and the same is deliberated, as follows: (i) The delinquent submits that the show-cause notice is against rules, which is a figment of his own imagination. The rules (Powers to Review) are absolutely clear on the subject: (ii) The allegation of step-motherly treatment (to the delinquent) is again the pigment of delinquent’s imagination, as is clearly bone out from the service record of the delinquent. The delinquent has had (luckily) large hearted and magnanimous attitude of the department and has been provided so many opportunities by the department but the same has been taken by the delinquent as his “ right” which is unfortunate, to say the least: (iii) The delinquent has absented, unauthorizedly on 05 occasions,( within a span of 06 months, ( apart from dozens of unauthorized absences etc, in the past) as have been brought on record and this itself proves that he has been allowed to join, every time, in the hope that he would mend his ways. Unfortunately, that has not happened. Therefore, the submissions by the delinquent are not only false but malicious: (iv) The delinquent is responsible for his own deeds and number of opportunities stand provided to the delinquent, but all in vain. Such magnanimity on the part of the department has adversely effected the “Morale”, Discipline” of the force, at large and therefore sternest action is warranted: (v) The charges have been substantiated, beyond any shadow of doubt and the delinquent was provided full opportunity to defend himself and only after due process of law, he is sought to be dealt with, under rules. From the above it is crystal clear that the delinquent has not only indulged (and that too repeatedly) in unauthorized absence, dereliction of duties, desertion from bonfide command, creating indiscipline, has brought a bad name for the department, as the neighbours (of the delinquent) have also pointed out. The misconducts etc. From the above it is crystal clear that the delinquent has not only indulged (and that too repeatedly) in unauthorized absence, dereliction of duties, desertion from bonfide command, creating indiscipline, has brought a bad name for the department, as the neighbours (of the delinquent) have also pointed out. The misconducts etc. of the delinquent is a blot on the glory and image of the valiant J&K Police and thus warrants to be dealt with the sternest of punishment, as dozens of opportunities provided to the delinquent have failed to prove as corrective and the major/minor punishments have not deterred/reformed the delinquent, a bit and instead it appears that the same has instead emboldened him. Such leniency has started to spread like cancer among the rank and file and such situation cannot be allowed, in the larger interest of the society. Moreover, the absence etc. of the delinquent has come of crucial, critical and trying times, when every hand was needed to maintain law & order. This proves that the delinquent is a coward and deserts at his own sweet will. Therefore, the charges (proved against the delinquent, in spite of full, fair opportunities provided tot eh delinquent to defend himself) being very serious, are required to be dealt accordingly and after careful deliberation, it is clear that dismissal of the delinquent would be just and fair; Therefore, in totality of the circumstances and in exercise of powers vested with the undersigned, including “Powers of Review” it is hereby ordered that the delinquent namely Recruit Constable Altaf Ahmad Khan, 979/S, PID No.EXK-926078 s/o Ghulam Mohammad Khan R/o Chandapora Habbakadal, Srinagar is hereby dismissed with immediate effect. This order is in supersession of DPO Srinagar’s orders viz No.711 of 2010 dated 20.3.2010, No.712 of 2010 dated 20.03.2010, No. 713 of 2010 dated 20.3.2010, No. 714 for 2010 dated 20.3.2010 and No. 734 of 2010, which were issued against the delinquent. The period of unauthorized absences shall be treated as under: (i) W.e.f 17.03.2009 to 23.3.2009 and 09.04.2009 to 12.04.2009, as on earned leave: (ii) W.e.f 16.5.2009 to 10.07.2009, as on leave, without pay. (iii) W.e.f 23.07.2009 to 07.09.2009 as on earned leave. (iv) W.e.f 07.09.2009 to 13.10.2009, as on earned leave. (v) W.e.f 24.10.2009 to 03.12.2009 as on earned leave. The period of unauthorized absences shall be treated as under: (i) W.e.f 17.03.2009 to 23.3.2009 and 09.04.2009 to 12.04.2009, as on earned leave: (ii) W.e.f 16.5.2009 to 10.07.2009, as on leave, without pay. (iii) W.e.f 23.07.2009 to 07.09.2009 as on earned leave. (iv) W.e.f 07.09.2009 to 13.10.2009, as on earned leave. (v) W.e.f 24.10.2009 to 03.12.2009 as on earned leave. (vi) 03.12.2009 (so recorded vide D.D. entry No. 69 dated 03.12.2009 of DPL Srinagar) till date i.e. 01.05.2020, as on “Diesnon” on the principle of no work no pay”. The delinquent is directed to deposit all Govt articles, uniform, I-Card, accouterments etc. to DPL Srinagar and obtain a proper NDC, i.e. No Dues certificate, from appropriate authority.” 15. The respondent preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.11.2010. 16. Before we proceed to consider the case of the respondent, it would be appropriate to refer to the settled legal position with regard to disciplinary action against the members of the disciplined forces. 17. In Union of India and ors. vs Bishambar Das Dogra, (2009) 13 SCC 102 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court was considering the issue regarding desertion by a Security Guard in Central Industrial Security Force. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. While passing the order, his past conduct was also considered. Statutory appeal was dismissed. Orders were challenged before the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that copy of the enquiry report was not furnished. Order was upheld by the Division Bench. In a challenge to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, Hon’ble the Supreme Court while discussing the issue of prejudice on account of non supply of the copy of the enquiry report and also for taking note of the previous conduct of the employee, reversed the orders passed by the High Court. The observation was that the Court/Tribunal must keep in mind that indiscipline is intolerable so far as disciplined force is concerned. His previous conduct and the punishment awarded, which were not disputed were taken into consideration. It was opined that the punishment so awarded could not be set aside merely on technicalities. Relevant para 28 thereof is extracted below: “28. The show cause notice could not be served upon him for the reason that he again deserted the LINE and returned back after 50 days. It was opined that the punishment so awarded could not be set aside merely on technicalities. Relevant para 28 thereof is extracted below: “28. The show cause notice could not be served upon him for the reason that he again deserted the LINE and returned back after 50 days. Therefore the disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded expeditiously. The respondent submitted the reply to the show cause notice and the material on record reveal that during the pendency of the enquiry he further deserted the LINE for 10 days. There is nothing on record to show any explanation for such repeated misconduct or absenteeism. The Court/Tribunal must keep in mind that such indiscipline is intolerable so far as the disciplined force is concerned. The respondent was a guard in CISF. No attempt had ever been made at any stage by the respondent-employee to explain as to what prejudice has been caused to him by non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Nor he ever submitted that such a course has resulted in failure of justice. More so, the respondent employee had never denied at any stage that he had not been punished three times before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and deserted the LINE twice even after issuance of the show cause notice in the instant case. No explanation could be furnished by the respondent-employee as under what circumstances he has not even consider it proper to submit the application for leave. Rather, the respondent thought that he had a right to desert the LINE at his sweet will. It was a case of gross violation of discipline. Appeal filed by the respondent employee was decided by the Statutory Appellate Authority giving cogent reasons. The facts of the case did not present special features warranting any interference by the Court in limited exercise of its powers of judicial review. In such a fact situation, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on such technicalities.” (emphasis supplied) 18. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., 2014 (1) ILR (Delhi) 70, opined that in paramilitary forces, discipline has to be maintained. The purpose of penalty is not only to penalise the wrong doer but even act as a deterrent for others. If left leniently, it may be temptation for others. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Sunil Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., 2014 (1) ILR (Delhi) 70, opined that in paramilitary forces, discipline has to be maintained. The purpose of penalty is not only to penalise the wrong doer but even act as a deterrent for others. If left leniently, it may be temptation for others. The discipline will vanish. 19. In Union of India and Ors. vs. Ex LAC Nallam Shiva, (2017) 15 SCC 270 , the issue under consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court was overstay of casual leave granted to armed forces personnel. He was granted casual leave from 20.10.2012 till 04.11.2012. However, he remained absent till 11.04.2014. Charge was framed and proved. He defence was that he was not keeping good health, was rejected and punishment of dismissal was imposed. He challenged the order of punishment before the Armed Forces Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”). He was directed to be re-instated back in service. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Union of India before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. While noticing that the respondent therein over-stayed the leave for a period of around 1½ year, which is indubitably against the requirements of discipline, re-instatement in such cases would send a wrong signal and impact discipline in armed forces. Relevant para 7 thereof is extracted below: “7. Regulation 754(C) of the Defence Service Regulations for Armed Forces reads thus:- “Sentences must necessarily vary according to the requirements of discipline but in ordinary circumstances, and for a first offence, a sentence should be light.” Indeed, the respondent may have been charged for the first time for having committed offence of overstaying the casual leave period. The respondent may also have offered explanation about the matrimonial dispute, other family issues and his ill-health, as the cause for not reporting to duty. From the proved facts, however, it is evident that the respondent overstayed for a period of around 1½ years beyond the casual leave period which is indubitably against the requirements of discipline. In that, he was granted casual leave from 20th October, 2012 to 4th November, 2012, but he surrendered only on 11th April, 2014. He did not bother to intimate his whereabouts either to his superiors or to the nearest military station during the intervening period stretched upto around 1½ years. In that, he was granted casual leave from 20th October, 2012 to 4th November, 2012, but he surrendered only on 11th April, 2014. He did not bother to intimate his whereabouts either to his superiors or to the nearest military station during the intervening period stretched upto around 1½ years. If he was suffering from any illness personally or for that matter if his father suffered a paralytic attack, he ought to have gone to the MilitaryHospital for treatment. However, he did not choose to go to the MilitaryHospital but to a quack. This is a serious misconduct and cannot be countenanced in the disciplined force where the respondent was serving. From the established facts it would not warrant a lighter view, much less to direct reinstatement of the respondent, as has been done by the Tribunal. That would send a wrong signal and impact the discipline of the Armed Forces. The respondent had just put in around six years of service when he ventured into committing the stated offence. The fact that he has already undergone punishment of sentence period for the offence of desertion also can be of no avail so as to interdict the decision of the disciplinary authority to dismiss the respondent from service.” (emphasis supplied) 20. However, finally taking a sympathetic view, considering the past record of the respondent therein and that it was the first offence, Hon’ble the Supreme Court modified the punishment from dismissal to discharge from service so that he may not be disqualified for applying for employment elsewhere. It was considering his young age with family to support. 21. In State of Uttarakhand and Ors. vs Prem Ram, Civil Appeal No. 3152 of 2019 decided on March 15, 2019, Hon’ble the Supreme Court reversed the order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court. In that case, the Uttarakhand High Court had converted the punishment of dismissal of a constable to compulsory retirement, opining that his past conduct could not have been taken into consideration. The charge against the police constable was drunkenness and misbehaviour with public. Considering the seriousness of charge and the fact that the respondent therein was member of police service, Hon’ble the Supreme Court did not find any justification with the order of the High Court while interfering in the order of dismissal. His dismissal was upheld. 22. The respondent herein joined as Constable on 18.12.1992. Considering the seriousness of charge and the fact that the respondent therein was member of police service, Hon’ble the Supreme Court did not find any justification with the order of the High Court while interfering in the order of dismissal. His dismissal was upheld. 22. The respondent herein joined as Constable on 18.12.1992. Till date, he has not even undergone the Basic Recruitment Training Course. He has merely served the department for a period of 4/5 years, as submitted by learned counsel for the State. During his entire service career, number of punishments were inflicted on him on account of various misconduct, which are detailed as under: “(i) Vide DPO Srinagar’s order No.1683/1994 dated 19.10.1994 period of absence w.e.f 26.10.1992 to 16.02.1994 treated as “Dies non”. (ii) Vide SP rural and Headquarter Srinagar’s order No. 426/1994 dated 26.10.1994 period of absence from 28.08.1994 to 09.09.1994 treated as “Dies non”. (iii) Censure awarded vide SP Rural and Headquarter Srinagar order No. 426/94 dated 26.10.1994. (iv) Period of absence w.e.f 27.08.1995 to 01.09.1995 vide SP Rural and Headquarter Srinagar order No. 248/95 dated 10.11.1995. (vii) Censure awarded vide SP Rural and Headquarter Srinagar order No. 91/1997 dated 09.05.1997. (viii) Period of absence (12 days treated as “ Dies non” vide SP Rural and Headquarter order No. 146/1997 dated 28.07.1997. (ix) Annual increment stopped for a period for six months vide DPO Srinagar’s order No. 178/1998 dated 06.03.1998 and period of absence (199 days) treated as “Dies non”. (x) Dismissed from services vide DPO Srinagar’s order No.510/1998 dated 04.08.1998. (xi) In compliance to Hon’ble Courts orders the delinquent official was reinstated into the service and kept under the suspension and departmental enquiry was entrusted to DDP CKR Srinagar vide DPO Srinagar’s order No.557 of 2005 dated 06.05.2005. (xii) Dismissed from service vide DIG CKR Srinagar’s order No. 483/2005 dated 17.11.2005 and period w.e.f 17.04.1998 to 26.04.2005 as “ Dies non” without pay (xiii) Reinstated into service vide DIG CKR order No. 428/2008 dated 19.08.2008 and period of absence w.e.f 05.08.1998 to 26.04.2005 is treated without pay.” 23. A perusal of the aforesaid details of punishments inflicted on the respondent, it is evident that he was regular absentee. Substantial part of his service was treated as Dies Non. There were punishments of stoppage of annual increments. A perusal of the aforesaid details of punishments inflicted on the respondent, it is evident that he was regular absentee. Substantial part of his service was treated as Dies Non. There were punishments of stoppage of annual increments. Even the Deputy Inspector General of Police while reinstating the respondent back in service vide order dated 19.08.2008, after disposal of writ petition filed by the respondent had observed as under: “Whereas, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the legal and factual aspects of the enquiry, directions from Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 04.07.2008 to consider the recommendations of enquiry officer, findings of enquiry officer wherein misconduct has been proved against Ct. Altaf Ahmad No.1647/S for remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty after he was deputed to PTS Manigam for undergoing BRTC. For the facts mentioned above and the grave misconduct stern punishment (Dismissal) is warranted so as to wed out such undesirable elements from the force, but keeping in view the Hon’ble High Court directions dated 04.07.2008, economic condition and the misery it will cause to delinquents family, undersigned is constrained to take a lenient view, agreeing with the recommendations of enquiry officer, it is hereby accordingly ordered that:- (1) Ct. Altaf Ahmad No. 1647/S is reinstated into service with immediate effect: (2) The period of absence w.e.f 17.04.1998 to 04.08.1998 (date of earlier dismissal) is treated as “Dies non” on the analogy of “No Work No Pay. (3) The period w.e.f 05.08.1998 to 26.04.2005 (the date of reinstatement ) is treated as on duty without pay.2018. (4) The period w.e.f 26.04.2005 to 17.11.2005 is treated as on duty, as the delinquent remained present to face the departmental enquiry; (5) The period w.e.f 17.11.2005 till date is treated as on duty without pay for the purpose of regularization of service.” (emphasis supplied) 24. The aforesaid order categorically records that the misconduct of the respondent for remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty after he was deputed to PoliceTraining School, Manigam for undergoing the Basic Recruitment Training Course had been fully proved but still lenient view was taken. The aforesaid order was passed on 19.08.2008. Even after the lenient view taken by the department against the respondent herein, there was no improvement in his conduct. He still remained absent from duty. The aforesaid order was passed on 19.08.2008. Even after the lenient view taken by the department against the respondent herein, there was no improvement in his conduct. He still remained absent from duty. The period has been detailed out in the show cause notice issued to the respondent in exercise of powers under Rule 363 of the Police Rules. The Relevant part thereof reads as under: “(a) order No.711/2010 dated 20.03.2010, whereby a “Censure” has been awarded to you and period of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 17.03.2009 to 23.03.2009 and 09.04.2009 to 12.04.2009 has been treated, as on earned leave; (b) order No.712/2010 dated 20.03.2010, whereby annual increment of yours (as and when due) has been stopped for a period of one year and period of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 07.09.2009 to 13.10.2009 has been treated, as on earned leave; (c) order No.713/2010 dated 20.03.2010, whereby annual increment of yours (as and when due) has been stopped for a further period of 06 months and period of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 23.07.2009j to 07.09.2009 has been treated, as on earned leave; (d) order No.714/2010 dated 20.03.2010, whereby another “Censure” has been awarded to you and period of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 16.05.2009 to 10.09.2009 has been treated, as on leave, without pay; (e) order No.734/2010 dated 20.03.2010, whereby annual increment of yours (as and when due) has been stopped for a period of 06 months and period of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 24.10.2009 to 03.12.2009 has been treated, as on earned leave. 2. Whereas, in view of the above, your service record was perused, which revealed that, you have not undergone BRTC, as yet and that you have been dismissed twice earlier, and have been awarded number of major as well as minor punishment; 3. Whereas, in spite of the above, you have not bothered to reform yourself and have continued with your wayward ways, which is giving a bad name to the department and casting a slur on the glory of J&K Police; 4. Whereas, you have again absented unauthorizedly, so recorded vide D.D. entry No.69 (of DPL, Srinagar) dated 03.12.2009 at 18:45 hours and continue to remain so, till date. It is pertinent to mention here that you had sought permission, to resume duties on 03.12.2009 and had resumed vide DDR No.59 dated 03.12.2009 at 1605 hrs. and barely after 04 hours, again absented unauthorizedly and continue to do so. It is pertinent to mention here that you had sought permission, to resume duties on 03.12.2009 and had resumed vide DDR No.59 dated 03.12.2009 at 1605 hrs. and barely after 04 hours, again absented unauthorizedly and continue to do so. This amply proves that you are a burden on the State exchequer and are not only creating grave indiscipline, but also make a mockery of the system, which cannot be allowed to be tolerated.” 25. After proper opportunity and considering the reply filed by the respondent where he did not dispute the factum of the earlier punishments imposed, vide order dated 01.05.2010, he was dismissed from service. In appeal, the order was upheld. 26. If the case of the respondent is examined in the light of enunciations of law with reference to the conduct expected from a member of the disciplined force, the only possible conclusion can be that such an official does not deserve to remain in police force. He is in fact a blot, which brings bad name to the department and creates indiscipline. 27. Rule 363 of the Police Rules gives ample powers to the Inspector General of Police or Deputy Inspector General of Police to review any proceedings. In the case in hand, the competent authority had reviewed the earlier proceedings and while considering the record of service of the respondent had taken appropriate action. 28. The stand of the respondent that no enquiry was held before inflicting the punishment of dismissal is barely to be noticed and rejected as enquiries were earlier held against the respondent. Rule 363 enables the competent authority to review the record and pass appropriate order, after affording opportunity of hearing. Hence, the contention being misconceived is rejected. Even the plea that the ground on which the respondent is dismissed is not the one mentioned in Rule 337 of the Police Rules is also having no merit. The aforesaid Rule besides mentioning different acts of misconduct, of which examples have been given adds “complete unfitness for police service’, as one of the example. Even the plea that the ground on which the respondent is dismissed is not the one mentioned in Rule 337 of the Police Rules is also having no merit. The aforesaid Rule besides mentioning different acts of misconduct, of which examples have been given adds “complete unfitness for police service’, as one of the example. If applied in the facts of the present case, there cannot be a better case where the member of the disciplined force deserved this treatment, as it is not meant only to punish the delinquent employee but also send a message across regarding intolerance of discipline in the police force especially in a State where they have to remain alert 24 x 7. 29. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly accepted. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.