Shahid Ul Islam vs D/o Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 2026

O R D E R

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

Through the medium of the instant OA, applicant seeks to allow the OA by quashing the impugned order No.1626 of 2019 dated 07.12.2019 passed by the respondent and the applicant be re-instated in service and allowed to continue in the respondent department with all service benefits.

2. Alongside the main relief, the applicant also prays for interim relief that till disposal of OA, respondents may be directed to take a document Location:

S K Sinha

// 2 // OA/495/2021

decision on appeal submitted by the applicant on 20.12.2019, in accordance to J&K Police Manual.

3. What emerges out of the pleadings in the OA is that the applicant was appointed as Constable in the year 2012 vide order No.141 of 2012 dated 29.02.2012. According to the applicant, while he was posted in Kargil and performing his duties, he was roped in false and frivolous FIR bearing No.65/2018 dated 20.10.2018 under section 8/20 NDPS Act (Annexure-A2). The applicant was admitted to interim bail upto 26.11.2018 by the Hon’ble Court of Session Judge, Kargil on 19.11.2018. During the pendency of the aforementioned case, the applicant was transferred from Kargil to Srinagar vide RPHQ Srinagar order No.411 of 2018 dated 18.09.2018 and subsequently relieved from DPL Kargil on 11.10.2018 with the direction to report at new place of posting, but the applicant was not able to report because he was in police custody for more than 48 hours and subsequently vide order No.94 of 2019 dated 16.01.2019, the respondents placed him under suspension with immediate effect and SP, East Zone, Srinagar was directed to hold departmental enquiry for his absence from the duty and alleged involvement in the aforementioned case. SP, East Zone, Srinagar issued notice to the applicant on 19.06.2019 directing to report for duties within 7 days positively and face departmental enquiry, but the applicant could not appear and remained absent from duty. Therefore, vide impugned order No.1626 of 2019 dated 07.12.2019, the respondent-SP, East Zone, Srinagar removed the applicant from service w.e.f. 17.08.2019 on the recommendations of the enquiry officer (Annexure – A/7). Against the removal order, applicant submitted an appeal to the Director General of document Location:

S K Sinha

// 3 // OA/495/2021

Police and Inspector General of Police on 20.12.2019 via registered post, but he has annexed only receipt of registered post and did not annex said application.

4. In support of his case, the applicant has taken following grounds:-

(i) The respondents have failed to adhere to the rules and regulations to which the applicant is subjected to, namely J&K Police Manual wherein a full-fledged mechanism is prescribed for conducting and holding of Departmental Enquiries and infliction of authorized departmental punishment as specified in Rule 359 of J&K Police Manual.

(ii) The respondents have failed to furnish the enquiry report and the material relied upon by the respondents including the statement of witnesses, which is clear infringement of legal rights of applicant as guaranteed under Constitution of India.

(iii) The respondents have conducted an eye wash exercise, which is in violation of established principles. The applicant has been removed from service on the charge that the applicant seems to be habitual of absenteeism which alludes to the point that he is not interested to serve the department anymore. The conclusion of the enquiry officer is based on mere figment of his imagination and apprehension. The enquiry officer did not take into consideration the general principles of criminal jurisprudence and declared the applicant guilty in the aforementioned FIR, which is still pending before the Hon’ble Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kargil.

5. Per contra, respondents have filed their objections wherein they have submitted as under:- document Location:

S K Sinha

// 4 // OA/495/2021

(i) The applicant, Ex-Ct. Shahid-Ul-Islam Lone No.622/KL, PID No.EXK-126101 was transferred from Kargil to Srinagar vide RPHQ, Srinagar order No.411/2018 dated 18.09.2018 and was accordingly relieved from DPL Kargil on 11.10.2018 (A/N) with the directions to report new place of posting viz. District Srinagar. The applicant failed to report in DPL Srinagar well in time and, in the meanwhile, it was communicated by SP Kargil vide his office letter No.Estt/Misc/2018/25394-25400 dated 22.10.2018 that said applicant along with other official of DPL, Kargil were arrested by sleuths of P/S Kargil in view of their involvement in case FIR No.65/2018 U/S 8/20 NDPS Act of P/S Kargil and said applicant remained under Police custody w.e.f. 22.10.2018 to 19.11.2018. Lateron, the applicant submitted an application on 07.01.2019 for permitting him to resume duties.

(ii) Accordingly, in light of the above facts, the applicant was placed under suspension vide office order No.94/2019 dated 16.01.2019 and a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against him which was entrusted to SP, East Zone, Srinagar for its finalization. The applicant was also permitted to resume his duties in DPL, Srinagar (under suspension) with immediate effect and belt No.566/S was also allotted to him from this District. Despite of permitting the applicant to resume his duties (under suspension), he again remained absent w.e.f. 17.01.2019 and did not return for duties. Accordingly, necessary entry was reflected in the Daily Dairy of DPL, Srinagar. Later-on, the applicant submitted another application through Dy. SP, DAR (DPL), Srinagar for resumption of duties and this office accorded permission in favour of the applicant to resume his duties in DPL, Srinagar (under suspension) vide office order No.573/2019 dated document Location:

S K Sinha

// 5 // OA/495/2021

09.04.2019 and an another departmental enquiry was initiated in this behalf and that too was entrusted to SP, East Zone, Srinagar for its finalization.

(iii) Despite the applicant was permitted second time to resume his duties (under suspension), he failed to report for duties physically in DPL, Srinagar and continued to remain absent. The applicant submitted application through DPL, Srinagar for accord of permission to resume duties. Accordingly, permission was granted in his favour to resume duties in DPL, Srinagar (under suspension) vide office order No.1030/2019 dated 26.07.2019 with immediate effect.

(iv) The Enquiry Officer gave ample opportunity to the applicant to resume his duties and to associate himself with the proceedings of enquiry and in this behalf several signals were flashed to his concerned Police Station, but the applicant did not pay any heed and remained absent. Subsequently, a notice bearing No.Estt/SPE/Enq/19/7675 dated 19.06.2019 was issued by Enquiry Officer, which also was published in local dailies viz. "Roshni Srinagar" & “Srinagar Times" on 21.06.2019 asking the applicant to resume his duties within seven day positively. Besides, a copy of said notice was also served to him at his native place by Enquiry Officer in presence of some witnesses on 20.06.2019.

(v) From the above conduct, it is manifest that applicant was a habitual absentee, who despite given permission time and again remained absent and as many as 267 days he remained absent showing his lack of interest to serve the department. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry proceedings as per the mandate of law observed that said applicant has previously also remained absent for126 days and has also received one document Location:

S K Sinha

// 6 // OA/495/2021

major punishment which makes the conduct of applicant explicit. The Enquiry Officer: arriving at conclusion submitted his findings to the respondent vide letter No.Estt/SPE/DE/19/10838 dated 09.09.2019 with certain recommendations.

(vi) The respondents pondered upon the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer and findings together with other connected documents and it was found that Enquiry has been concluded rightly and recommendations of Enquiry Officer were agreed and the period of absence of applicant i.e. 267 days were ordered to be treated as Dies-non on the analogy of “no work no pay.” However, period from 16.01.2019 (F/N) to 17.01.2019 (F/N) & 28.07.2019 (F/N) to 30.07.2019 (F/N) were treated as on Earned Leave.

(vii) The applicant was removed from the services of Department and to this effect order bearing No.1626 of 2019 dated 07.12.2019 was issued. The said order has been issued in accordance with governing service rules & regulations applying due diligence and application of mind by the respondents.

(viii) The applicant was involved in a criminal case for no fault of his employer, the respondents, and his arrest/detention was a consequence of his involvement in a FIR.

(ix) In light of above, all the assertions made in the instant petition, to the extent, that there has been any exercise of malafidies is denied by the respondents. The applicant has employed different pleas as a subterfuge to cover his misconduct which has earned him removal from services of the department. The conduct of the applicant was inimical to the discipline to which police force is bound to and if such delinquent individuals are not dealt with sternly, a very negative effect is going to be felt through the rank and file of the police force. In document Location:

S K Sinha

// 7 // OA/495/2021

the premises, the instant application may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice and fair play with heavy costs.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant filed rejoinder to the objections filed by the respondents and submitted as under:-

(i) It is stated in the rejoinder that the respondent department failed to initiate a proper departmental inquiry as mandated under the rules governing the field, particularly Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules. It is well established and settled position of law that mere absence from duty doesn’t automatically warrant dismissal or removal from services. Any such punitive action must be preceded by a comprehensive and detailed inquiry conducted by the respondent department strictly in accordance with the procedural safeguards and requirements laid down in the relevant rules. In this regard Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, which outlines the procedure to be followed before imposing major penalty, such as removal from service, is of particular relevance.

(ii) The applicant further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in catena of judgments, has held that any infraction of the rules before any termination order issued against the Government Official vitiates the entire proceedings. The applicant submits that in case the enquiry is conducted by the respondent department, after culmination of enquiry proceedings it is settled principle of law that the delinquent officer must be served with the enquiry report especially when the same contains any findings adverse to him. Further, the disciplinary authority is obligated to issue a show-cause notice to the delinquent indicating the punishment proposed to be imposed so that he / she can make a representation to document Location:

S K Sinha

// 8 // OA/495/2021

the disciplinary authority before the final order is issued. In the instant case, nowhere such mention has been made that such type of process has been adhered to by the respondents and required procedure has been followed in letter and spirit. Thus the impugned order in this petition deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(iii) The respondents have passed the order of dismissal without conducting an enquiry whatsoever. It is settled position of law that, in accordance with the applicable rules including Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, any Police personnel facing removal of service or reduction in rank must be given prior notice and afford a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. It is submitted that the satisfaction contemplated under an exception clause cannot be presumed or implied; it must be explicitly recorded, and the reasons must withstand judicial scrutiny. In the absence of such a record, the dismissal of the applicant without holding an inquiry violates not only the statutory safeguards provided under the J&K Police Rules but also offends the principle of natural justice. Furthermore, it is constitutional obligation upon to ensure that fair and proper disciplinary authority is held before imposing any major penalty, reduction, removal or termination in rank, thus requirement is not only statutory but also obligatory in nature. Since the process of inquiry is a vital means of ascertaining the real and relevant facts behind the alleged misconduct and without it, any punishment imposed lacks legal procedural sanctity in the impugned order. Procedure, as established under the act, is missing in the instant case, as such, the impugned penalty imposed upon the applicant is violative of Constitutional Guarantees and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

document Location:

S K Sinha

// 9 // OA/495/2021

(iv) The applicant submits that the contention of the respondents raised in the objections is totally incorrect and untenable. The applicant has demonstrated in his application, as well as hereinabove, the violation of constitutional provisions and Rules, which violate his fundamental rights vis -à- vis the right to equality before the law, coupled with lack of a fair and transparent inquiry in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the right to continue with his service profession/occupation under Article 19, and the right to receive salary and other service benefits in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As such, the impugned order passed by the respondents is totally in disregard of and in violation of the aforesaid legal position.

7. A written submission with case law has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of his case. The learned counsel has submitted that since a Government servant is involved in any criminal charge, he cannot be dismissed from service on the ground of pendency of FIR; the authority must consider that a person is innocent in law until such time as the court of competent jurisdiction have not passed a judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a government servant is convicted, he cannot be dismissed on the ground of conviction and the removal/termination order cannot be passed in a mechanical way. Thus, the applicant is entitled to reliefs, as prayed for in the application alongwith all consequential benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, has held that even upon the conviction of an employee for a criminal charge, the order of punishment cannot be passed unless the conduct that has led to his conviction, is also considered. It was further held that even after an employee's conviction, conduct leading to that document Location:

S K Sinha

// 10 // OA/495/2021

conviction must be considered before any dismissal or removal from service. The respondents have failed to consider the conduct of the applicant, which has led to his involvement in criminal charge before imposing punishment of removal by means of impugned order. The pendency of FIR does not automatically result in dismissal or termination from service. A mere accusation or investigation does not constitute proof of guilt and legal principles require that an employee is considered innocent until proven guilty by a competent court. In support of his case, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Manohar Lal vs. Commissioner of Police &Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 236;

(ii) Ajit Singh vs. State of J&K and Others (SWP No.1559/2016 decided on 25.10.2017);

(iii) Supreme Court judgment in the case titled as State of UP through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow vs. Ram Prakash Singh (Civil Appeal No.14724/2024;and

(iv) Judgment of High Court of Allahabad in the case titled as Kamlesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another decided on 23.07.2025.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the contents of the OAs and annexures on file, reply filed by the respondents and also the written arguments filed by the applicant.

9. The case of the applicant is that the impugned order has been issued in total breach of the Rule 359 of the J&K Police Manual for conducting departmental enquiries, read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

10. It would be apposite to see Rule 359 of the Police Rules, 1960 and the same is reproduced herein below: “359. Procedure in departmental enquiries –

The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries:- document Location:

S K Sinha

// 11 // OA/495/2021

(a) The enquiry shall, whenever, possible be conducted by a gazetted officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon the accused officer. Any other gazetted officer or an Inspector specially empowered by the Minister I/C Police Department, to hold departmental enquiries (vide Order No. 636-C, dated 27.06.1945) may be deputed to hold an enquiry or may institute an enquiry on his own initiative against an accused police officer who is directly subordinate to him, except that in the case of a complaint against a constable the enquiry may be conducted by an Inspector. The final order, however, may be passed only by an officer empowered to inflict a major punishment upon the accused police officer.

The officer conducting the enquiry shall summon the accused police officer before him and shall record and read out to him a statement summarising the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give full notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded.

If the accused police officer at this stage admits the misconduct alleged against him the officer conducting the enquiry may proceed forthwith to record a final order if it is within his power to do so or a finding to be forwarded to an officer empowered to decide the case. Whenever a serious default is reported and the preliminary enquiry is necessary before a definite charge can be framed, this is usually best done on the spot and might be carried out by the Sub- Inspector of the particular Police Station in the case of head constables and constables serving under him or by the Inspector of the Circle in the case of Sub-Inspectors within his charge. At the same time it must be left to Superintendent of Police to select the most suitable officers for the purpose or to do it themselves when such a course appears desirable. When the preliminary enquiry indicates a criminal offence, application for permission to prosecute should at once be made to the authority competent to dismiss the officer and permission should be promptly granted if that authority agrees that there is prima facie case for prosecution.

If the accused police officer does not admit that misconduct the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record such evidence oral and documentary in proof of the accusation as is available and necessary to support the charge. Whenever possible witnesses shall be examined direct and in the presence of the accused who shall be given opportunity to cross-examine them. The officer conducting the enquiry is empowered however to bring on to the record the statement of any witness whose presence cannot in the opinion of such officer be produced without undue delay and expense or inconvenience if he considers such statement necessary and provided that it has been recorded and attested by a police officer not below the rank of Inspector or by a Magistrate and is signed by the person making it. The accused shall be bound to answer questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him, with a view to elucidating the facts referred to in statements or documents brought on the record as herein provided.

When the evidence in support of the allegations has been recorded, the enquiring officer shall –

(a) If he considers that such allegations are not substantiated either discharge the accused himself if he is empowered to punish him, or recommend his document Location:

S K Sinha

// 12 // OA/495/2021

discharge to the Superintendent or other officer who may be so empowered, or (b) Proceed to frame a formal charge or charges in writing, explain them to the accused officer and call upon him to answer them.

The accused officer shall be required to state the defence witnesses whom he wishes to call and may be given time in no case exceeding 48 hours to prepare a list of such witnesses together with a summary of the facts as to which they will testify. The enquiring officer shall be empowered to refuse to hear any witnesses whose evidence he considers will be irrelevant or unnecessary in regard to the specified charge framed in which case he shall record the reason for his refusal. He shall record the statements of those defence witnesses whom he decides to admit in the presence of the accused, who shall be allowed to address questions to them the answers to which shall be recorded, provided that the enquiring officer may cause to be recorded by any other officer not below the rank of Inspector the statement of any such witness whose presence cannot be secured without undue delay or inconvenience and may bring such statement on to the record. The accused may file documentary evidence and may for this purpose be allowed access to such files and papers except such as form part of the record of the confidential office of the Superintendent of Police as the enquiring officer deems fit. The supply of copies of documents to the accused shall be subject to the ordinary rules regarding copying fees.

At the conclusion of the defence evidence or if the enquiring officer so directs at any earlier stage, following the framing of a charge the accused shall be required to state his own answer to the charge. He may be permitted to file a written statement and may be given time not exceeding one week for its preparation but shall be bound to make an oral statement in answer to all questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him arising out of the charge, the recorded evidence or his own written statement.

The enquiring officer shall then proceed to pass orders of acquittal or punishment if empowered to do so or to forward the case with his finding and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers.

Nothing in the foregoing rules shall debar a Superintendent of Police from making or causing to be made a preliminary investigation into the conduct of a suspected officer. Such an enquiry is not infrequently necessary to ascertain the nature and degree of misconduct which is to be formally enquired into. The suspected police officer may or may not be present at such preliminary enquiry as ordered by the Superintendent of Police or other gazetted officer initiating the investigation but shall not cross-examine witnesses. The file of such a preliminary investigation shall form no part of the formal departmental record but may be used for the purposes of sub-rule 4 above.

This rule shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation.

As laid down in Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, no officer shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

No police officer shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause orally and also in writing against document Location:

S K Sinha

// 13 // OA/495/2021

the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, provided that this clause shall not apply:- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge; (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove an officer 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 give to that person an opportunity of showing cause; or

(c) where the Sadar-i-Riyasat is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the state it is not expedient to give to that officer such an opportunity.

If any question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to give to any officer an opportunity of showing cause under clause (2) above, the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such officer or to reduce him rank, as the case may be, shall be final.”

11. It is also to be seen whether principles of natural justice, Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules 1960 have been followed or not in the instant case as this Rule envisages that the delinquent official must be given an opportunity to meet the charges levelled against him and also against the proposed penalty. An opportunity of being heard is ‘sine qua non’ of every order/decision involving termination of services of Government employees, besides, reasons justifying so. From Perusal of the pleadings on record, it appears that opportunity of being heard was not provided to the applicant before issuing the impugned order. Our Country aims at the goal of achieving a Welfare State where everyone has to be, as far as possible looked after. The principles of natural justice are imbibed from the Constitution itself. These are of paramount importance and nobody can be condemned unheard. In AIR 2005 SC 2020; Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: "10. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party document Location:

S K Sinha

// 14 // OA/495/2021

determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes whole vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the 'Magna Carta. The classic exposition of Sir Edward coke of natural justice requires to 'vacate interrogate and adjudicate". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, [1963] 413 ER 414, the principle was thus stated: "Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam", says God, "Where art thou has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that though should not eat". Since then the principle has been chiseled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond."

12. In this regard, we are also fortified by a judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of J&K at Srinagar, titled as Showkat Ahmad Mir v. Union of India and ors. LPA no. 122/2018 decided on 22.09.2020.

13. Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the applicant has been removed from service with effect from 17.08.2019 due to absence from duty. The order of removal is undoubtedly retrospective in nature which again is bad in law. To this effect, we are fortified by the judgment passed by the Jharkhand High Court in case titled as Union of India through East Central Railways v. Central Administrative Tribunal and anr.,ShyamBabu Kumar v. State of Bihar and ors.

14. Law is also no more res integra as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment tiled as Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and anr. Passed in SLP no. 29758/2018 on 18.11.2024 wherein their lordships have held that “even in an ex-parte enquiry it is the duty of the enquiry officer to examine the evidence presented by the department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to document Location:

S K Sinha

// 15 // OA/495/2021

inflict major punishment.” Their lordships further held that “an enquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial manner is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government.” The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that “even in an ex-parte enquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges as such relating on the law cited above we are of the firm view that enquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to the charges punishable with the major penalty as inflicted upon the petitioner are totally vitiated and non estt in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges”.

15. The present case attracts applicability of principles of natural justice and violation of Rule 359 of Police Rules, 1960. Law is settled that when an enquiry has not been done in the matter as prescribed under Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, the order does not survive in the eyes of law as has been held in the case titled as Mukhtar Ali Lone v. State of J&K and ors. reported in 2015 (4) JKJ 183 as also the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 2012 (3) JKJ 566, State of J&K v. Asger Khan (Constable) as also in 2011 (1) JKJ 31 and Malook Khan v. State of J&K and ors. as also in 2008 (3) JKJ 439. In this view, we are also fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Satwati Deswal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2009 (7) Supreme 229 wherein their lordships have held that where termination is in violation of procedure prescribed, the High Court has the discretionary power to interfere under the Writ Jurisdiction.

document Location:

S K Sinha

// 16 // OA/495/2021

16. On perusal of the entire material on record and the pleadings of the parties coupled with the submissions made at Bar, we are of the opinion that the impugned order, having been passed in breach of the statutory rule i.e. Rule 359 of the Police Rules, 1960 as also in violation of principle of natural justice, cannot withstand the test of law as mentioned in the case titled as SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava 2021 (2) SCC 612, relevant paragraphs whereof are extracted as under: “24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or the finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the Disciplinary Authority or perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine:

(i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority;

(ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;

(i) whether the findings or conclusions are based on same evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.”

17. We are also fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as State of Mysore v. M.H. Bellary AIR 1965 SC 868, State of U.P. vs. Babu Ram Upadhya AIR 1961 SC 75, Suraj Prasad vs. Northern Railway AIR 1967 Allahabad 457.

18. As far as an FIR against the applicant is concerned, we are also fortified by the judgments in the case titled as Anuj Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan &Ors., reported in 2025:RJ-JD:48337 and in the case titled as Lokendra Singh Kushwah vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, document Location:

S K Sinha

// 17 // OA/495/2021

reported in 2026 MPHC GWL:160043 wherein, the Hon’ble Court held that mere registration of an FIR cannot be a ground for termination of service; rather, the services could only have been terminated if the competent Court had convicted the petitioner in the criminal case.

19. Undoubtedly, the police force is a disciplined force and it shoulders the great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in the police force and the force must be worthy of that confidence.

20. Director General of Police to sensitize the officials on the procedure to be followed in a departmental enquiry and on deciding the matter, especially of removal/termination/discharge from service after holding of enquiry.

21. We belong to the largest democracy of the world, which is governed by the mighty Constitution and nobody is above the law whosoever, be it high or low, and we do not belong to any colonial regime. There is equality before the law which has to be maintained as we are bound by the Constitution of India. Behaving like monarch is against the basic ethos of our constitution.

22. It is not in dispute that the applicant was a member of the disciplined force and any sort of willful absence necessitated proceedings as warranted under the law but what was incumbent upon the respondents was to have strictly adhered to the rules of natural justice and the mandate of the Constitution in letter and spirit, and the Police Manual so as to leave no chance or occasion for the delinquent employee to make a complaint with respect to infraction of the Constitutional mandate before the Court. Viewed in the context as above, the order impugned being document Location:

S K Sinha

// 18 // OA/495/2021

contrary to law and reason cannot be upheld. As the corollary, the O.A. is allowed in the below mentioned terms – a. The impugned order bearing No.1626 of 2019 dated 07.12.2019 is set aside and quashed. b. The respondents are directed to conduct an enquiry afresh in accordance with the rules and regulations occupying the field after affording ample opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The process should be completed preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of this judgment is served upon the respondents. c. It is made clear that the quashment of the impugned order shall not entitle the applicant to claim any salary/remuneration for the period he was out of service. d. However, it is directed that the intervening period of absence from service shall be decided by the respondents on the basis of findings of the inquiry, if held, only for continuity of service for the said period and the same would be counted only for his post-retiral benefits in accordance with rules.

23. Before parting we would also like to add that the Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry shall not be influenced by any observation made in this judgment.

24. This OA No.495/2021 is, accordingly, disposed of. Record, if any, shall be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents. Parties to bear their own costs. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.

Sd/- Sd/-

(PRASANT KUMAR) (M.S. LATIF)

MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) sks/- document Location:

S K Sinha