news details |
|
|
| Reinstatement of dismissed cop | | DB upholds single judge order | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 13: Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Jammu Wing, comprising Chief Justice Manmohan Sarin and Justice Sunil Hali, today upheld the judgment of single Judge passed on February 11, 2000 whereby the Single Judge ordered reinstatement of Head Constable Surjeet Singh, who was discharged from service with effect from October 21, 1994.
The respondents filed this appeal against the order of Single Judge on the ground that the respondent Head constable abstained from duty unauthorizedly from October 21, 1994, when the Battalion was to move from Jammu to Baramulla. Despite notices and signals being sent, respondent did not join the duty or respond to the notices. It is only to the first notice of May 19, 1995; he replied that he would be joining the duty by June 2, 1995. In August 1995 he was also placed under suspension for allegedly indulging in some criminal activities, FIR was registered U/Ss 420/406 RPC against him. The Commandant, exercising his powers under rules 335 of J&K Police Rules, discharged the respondent head constable from service with effect from the date he absented from duty with effect from October 21, 1994.
This significant judgment written by Chief Justice Manmohan Sarin for the Division Bench observed that the Single Judge in the impugned judgment, after noticing the legal position and several decisions wherein termination/ removal of service without holding an enquiry even in case of unauthorized absence had been held to be not sustainable, passed the impugned order grating relief of reinstatement. The appellant state had challenged the impugned orders and contended that the writ petition had been belatedly filed after three years. AAG SC Gupta appearing for the state while arguing the case in all fairness does not dispute the legal position that the order of discharge was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without conducting any enquiry and is not sustainable. He also submitted that as a result of the contempt petition the respondent, in fact had been reinstated on March 14, 2000, which was subject to the final orders in the pending LPA. The respondent's order of reinstatement was cancelled and the order of Single Judge was stayed.
DB further observed that considering that the Additional Advocate General himself has fairly submitted that this is a case where order of discharge on the ground of unauthorized absence was passed without holding an enquiry nothing survives in the LPA which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances as the Single Judge has not granted any back wages while passing the impugned order at that stage and the respondent has since been superannuated, the appellants would look into this matter and pass appropriate orders. With these observations DB dismissed the appeal. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
