The Bold Voice of J&K

HC quashes departmental enquiry against constable

0 46

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: Justice Alok Aradhe of Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Jammu Wing) quashed orders whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the orders of removal from services was dismissed by the then Inspector General of Police Jammu Zone and also the departmental enquiry initiated in the year 2000 for alleged unauthorized absence and registration of FIR.

The petitioner Sardari Lal who was appointed as Constable in Police Department in the year 1984 was suspended on the ground of registration of an FIR registered at Police Station, Bhadarwah. During the period of suspension in the year 2001 the petitioner was removed from service on the basis of alleged unauthorised absence and registration of FIR. The petitioner who was acquitted as the challan in the aforesaid FIR was dismissed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Doda and even the acquittal appeal preferred by the State was also dismissed by the  Division Bench in the year 2004. The aforesaid Constable filed an appeal before the then Deputy General Inspector of Police Doda-Kishtwar-Ramban Range who upheld the removal of order passed against the petitioner by the SSP Doda and thereafter the revision filed before IGP Jammu zone was also dismissed and feeling aggrieved of the same the petitioner knocked the doors of High Court.

After hearing Advocate Irfaan Khan appearing for the petitioner and Counsel for the Home Department, Justice Alok Aradhe quashed orders impugned challenged in the aforesaid writ petition. Advocate Khan appearing for the petitioner submitted that the orders impugned have been issued in flagrant violation of Rule 359 of Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960. The Inquiry Officer never recorded evidence in the presence of the petitioner and nor afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. No enquiry report was ever supplied to the petitioner and not only this, the impugned orders have been issued in violation of Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as the petitioner has been denied the reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Leave a comment
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com