MESHUR ALI vs HOME DEPARTMENT on 31 December 2025

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP No.3120/2015 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.8426/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court seeking following relief: - “It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a writ of certiorari and quash the orders impugned passed by respondents No.2 to 4; And Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the to grant forfeited increments respondents /promotion; And Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.

3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: - a) The applicant, Meshur Ali, is a permanent resident of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and a citizen of India, entitled to the protection of fundamental, legal, and statutory rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the laws governing public service. He is serving in the Jammu &

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 3 :: TA 8426/2021

Kashmir Police Department as a Constable and asserts that throughout his service career he has maintained good conduct and discipline, without any deliberate act amounting to misconduct. b) It is pleaded that during the relevant period, the applicant was posted at Police Station Billawar. On 06.09.2011, one Showkat Ali S/o Mohd. Tufail R/o Kindli was arrested in FIR No. 108/2011 registered under Section 379 RPC. During interrogation, the accused allegedly made a disclosure regarding the concealment of a stolen motorcycle, pursuant to which the applicant, along with other police personnel, was deputed for its recovery. c) According to the applicant, a Splendor motorcycle was found abandoned on Billawar–Sukrala Road. Since the applicant did not know how to drive, he allegedly brought the motorcycle on foot and handed it over to the concerned MASI in the presence of other police officials. It is claimed that although the recovery was initially appreciated, the applicant was subsequently malafidely implicated and accused of being in possession of by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 4 :: TA 8426/2021

stolen property, despite having no criminal intent or misconduct. d) Vide Order No. 890 of 2011 dated 06.09.2011 issued by the DPO Kathua, a departmental enquiry was ordered against the applicant and entrusted to Dy. Superintendent of Police, DAR, DPL Kathua. The applicant alleges that the enquiry was conducted in haste and in complete disregard of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 359 of the Police Rules. e) It is further pleaded that the Enquiry Officer concluded the proceedings without supplying relevant documents, enquiry report, or statements relied upon, thereby depriving the applicant of a fair opportunity to defend himself. On the basis of such allegedly defective enquiry, the respondent No. 4 accepted the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and vide Order No. 293 of 2012 dated 04.04.2012 ordered forfeiture of two annual increments of the applicant for a period of two years. f) Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu Range (respondent No. 3), which came to be dismissed vide Order No. 345 of 2012

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 5 :: TA 8426/2021

dated 11.08.2012. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone (respondent No. 2), but the same was also rejected on technical grounds vide Order dated 24.08.2015. g) The applicant has challenged the aforesaid orders primarily on the grounds that the enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 359 of the Police Rules and Rule 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956; that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority; that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted; that witnesses were examined in his absence; and that the appellate authorities passed mechanical orders without due application of mind. h) It is asserted that the applicant has no other efficacious remedy available and that the impugned punishment has adversely affected his service career, increments, and promotional prospects, necessitating invocation of judicial review jurisdiction.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 6 :: TA 8426/2021

4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: - a) The answering respondents have categorically denied all allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of constitutional or statutory rights. It is submitted that the present Transfer Application is misconceived, devoid of merit, barred by delay and laches, and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. b) At the outset, it is submitted that the applicant has approached the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay. The original punishment order was passed on 04.04.2012, whereas the writ petition was filed after more than three years. Such belated challenge, without any satisfactory explanation, disentitles the applicant from discretionary relief under judicial review. c) It is further submitted that the applicant has failed to clearly identify and specifically challenge the impugned orders in the pleadings, and has sought omnibus reliefs without laying a proper factual and legal foundation, rendering the petition vague and unsustainable.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 7 :: TA 8426/2021

d) On merits, it is submitted that during investigation of FIR No. 108/2011 under Section 379 RPC registered at Police Station Billawar, the accused Showkat Ali made a disclosure pursuant to which one scooter and eighteen motorcycles were recovered. During this process, it came to light that certain police officials, including the applicant, were found in possession and use of stolen motorcycles. The motorcycle bearing specific chassis details was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which constituted serious misconduct unbecoming of a police official. e) Considering the gravity of the misconduct and its adverse impact on public confidence in the police force, a departmental enquiry was lawfully initiated by the competent disciplinary authority, i.e., the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kathua, who appointed Dy. Superintendent of Police, DAR, DPL Kathua as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 359 of the Police Rules. f) The applicant was duly served with the charge-sheet, afforded adequate opportunities to participate in the enquiry, and allowed to defend himself. After appreciating the material on by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 8 :: TA 8426/2021

record, the Enquiry Officer submitted a reasoned report holding the charges proved and recommended forfeiture of two annual increments. The disciplinary authority, after independent application of mind, accepted the findings and imposed the penalty vide Order No. 293 of 2012 dated 04.04.2012. g) The applicant availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu Range, which was duly considered and rejected vide Order No. 345 of 2012 dated 11.08.2012. Thereafter, the applicant preferred a so-called second appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone, which was not maintainable under the Police Rules, as Rule 369 permits only one appeal against one order, except in cases of enhancement of penalty, which is not applicable here. h) The Inspector General of Police, while rejecting the representation, clearly recorded that the applicant had adopted an unending and legally impermissible course of appeals unknown to the statutory framework governing police service. i) It is emphatically denied that any prejudice was caused to the applicant. No violation of principles of natural justice has occurred. The applicant participated in the enquiry proceedings by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 9 :: TA 8426/2021

and, having done so, cannot now challenge the procedure at a belated stage merely because the outcome was unfavourable. j) It is well settled that the Tribunal, while exercising jurisdiction under judicial review, cannot act as an appellate authority to re- appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority. The punishment imposed is proportionate, reasoned, and based on proven misconduct. k) It is further submitted that the applicant has not specifically challenged the enquiry proceedings themselves, and without assailing the foundational enquiry, the consequential punishment order cannot be successfully impeached. l) In view of the above facts and settled legal principles, the respondents submit that the Transfer Application is devoid of merit, barred by delay and laches, and liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The writ petition (SWP No. 3120/2015) filed by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court of J&K was transferred to this Tribunal and registered as TA No. 8426/2021. The applicant assails

(i) punishment order dated 04.04.2012 whereby two annual by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 10 :: TA 8426/2021

increments were forfeited for two years, (ii) appellate order dated 11.08.2012 rejecting his appeal, and (iii) order dated 24.08.2015 whereby his further representation/appeal was rejected.

7. The reliefs sought, in substance, are quashment of the aforesaid orders and a direction to restore the forfeited increments and grant consequential promotion/benefits.

8. The case set up by the applicant is that while posted at Police Station Billawar, on 06.09.2011 an accused was arrested in FIR No. 108/2011 u/s 379 RPC and on disclosure a stolen motorcycle was to be recovered. The applicant claims he found an abandoned Splendor motorcycle, brought it on foot as he did not know driving, and handed it over to the concerned police official in presence of others. He asserts that instead of appreciation, he was falsely implicated and subjected to a departmental enquiry which, according to him, was conducted hastily and in breach of Rule 359 of the Police Rules, without proper hearing, without supply of documents/enquiry report, and with witnesses examined behind his back. The punishment of forfeiture of two increments for two years was imposed on 04.04.2012; his appeal was rejected on 11.08.2012; and his further approach to higher authority was rejected on 24.08.2015.

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 11 :: TA 8426/2021

9. The respondents oppose the TA on maintainability and merits. They plead that the punishment order is of 04.04.2012, whereas the applicant approached the writ court after more than three years, without any satisfactory explanation, hence the petition is barred by delay and laches. On merits, they state that during investigation/recoveries in FIR No. 108/2011, multiple motorcycles were recovered and it surfaced that certain police officials had nexus with offenders; a motorcycle (with specific chassis particulars) was recovered from the possession of the applicant; therefore a departmental enquiry under Police Rules was initiated by the competent authority (SSP Kathua) and conducted by Dy. SP as Enquiry Officer. After due opportunity and participation of the delinquent, the charges were found proved; the Enquiry Officer recommended forfeiture of two increments; and the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty. Appeal before DIG Jammu Range was rejected on merits. The so-called “second appeal” before IGP Jammu Zone was not maintainable in view of Rules 365/369 providing only one appeal, except in enhancement cases, and the applicant also did not avail the remedy of representation to the same appellate authority by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 12 :: TA 8426/2021

as contemplated in Rule 366(4). Respondents further submit that this Tribunal cannot reappreciate evidence like an appellate forum.

10. Upon hearing learned counsel and perusal of the record, the following issues arise:  Whether the challenge is liable to fail on account of delay and laches;  Whether the departmental enquiry/punishment suffers from procedural illegality or violation of natural justice warranting interference;  Whether this Tribunal can reappreciate evidence and substitute its view on facts;  Whether the penalty is shockingly disproportionate so as to warrant interference. A. Delay and laches

11. The punishment order is dated 04.04.2012 and the appellate order is dated 11.08.2012. The applicant invoked writ jurisdiction only in the year 2015, i.e., after a substantial gap. No cogent explanation of this delay is shown in the pleadings in a manner sufficient to persuade the Court to overlook laches. Service jurisprudence is settled that discretionary relief in judicial review is not granted to a litigant who by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 13 :: TA 8426/2021

sleeps over his rights and approaches the Court belatedly, especially when the challenge relates to disciplinary action which has attained finality and has already operated in service record. On this ground alone, the petition is liable to be rejected. B. Scope of interference in disciplinary matters

12. Even otherwise, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in disciplinary matters is supervisory and not appellate. It is settled that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process, not with the decision itself. Unless there is a demonstrable violation of statutory rules, principles of natural justice, perversity, or mala fides, the Court/Tribunal does not reweigh evidence or substitute its own conclusions. (Reference may be made to the principles laid down in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610.) C. Alleged violation of Rule 359 / natural justice

13. The applicant broadly alleges that Rule 359 of Police Rules was violated and documents/enquiry report were not furnished; that witnesses were examined behind his back; and that he was denied a fair hearing. However, beyond general averments, the record as placed does not show any specific contemporaneous protest, any written by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 14 :: TA 8426/2021

demand for documents/enquiry report, or any demonstrated prejudice that could vitiate the proceedings. The respondents have categorically pleaded that the enquiry was conducted in conformity with Rule 359; the charge-sheet was served; opportunities were granted; and the delinquent participated.

14. It is a settled principle that even where some procedural deviation is alleged, the Court must examine whether such deviation has caused real prejudice. The pleadings here do not establish how the outcome would have been different, particularly when the core allegation is about the applicant being found using/possessing the motorcycle which was recovered during the course of enquiry/investigation. In absence of demonstrated prejudice, the proceedings are not liable to be struck down merely on technical assertions. D. Competence of authority / charge-sheet issued by Dy. SP

15. The applicant contends that Dy. SP could not issue charge-sheet. The respondents’ version is that the disciplinary authority (SSP) ordered enquiry and appointed Dy. SP as Enquiry Officer, and thereafter the disciplinary authority imposed penalty.

16. In departmental enquiries, appointment of an Enquiry Officer by the competent disciplinary authority is a recognized course; mere by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 15 :: TA 8426/2021

issuance/service of charge-sheet through the Enquiry Officer, when the proceedings are initiated under orders of competent authority and culminate in an order of the disciplinary authority, does not ipso facto vitiate the action unless jurisdictional defect or prejudice is proved. No such material is shown. E. Second appeal / maintainability

17. The record also shows that after dismissal of the first appeal by DIG, the applicant approached IGP Jammu Zone by way of a further appeal/representation which was rejected noting that the Police Rules contemplate one appeal and do not permit an endless chain of appeals, except in situations of enhancement of penalty.

18. Thus, the proceedings before IGP cannot be used to revive limitation or to reopen a concluded disciplinary chain. The applicant, having exhausted statutory remedy, cannot convert an impermissible second appeal into a ground to claim continuing cause of action. F. Proportionality of penalty

19. The penalty imposed is forfeiture of two annual increments for two years, which is a minor/limited penalty and cannot be termed as shocking to the conscience. Considering the nature of allegation as found in the departmental proceedings (use/possession of a by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV

:: 16 :: TA 8426/2021

motorcycle linked to a theft recovery episode), the penalty cannot be said to be outrageously disproportionate so as to warrant interference on the doctrine of proportionality.

20. For the reasons recorded above, this Tribunal finds that: (i) the challenge suffers from delay and laches; (ii) no case of violation of mandatory procedure or principles of natural justice resulting in prejudice is made out; (iii) the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence; and (iv) the penalty is not shockingly disproportionate. Consequently, the Transfer Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

21. TA No. 8426/2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) Administrative Member

Judicial Member

/harshit/

by HARSHIT YADAV HARSHIT YADAV