BILAL AHMAD BANGROO Vs. STATE OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Bilal Ahmad Bangroo
STATE OF JANDK
Click here to view full judgement.
J.P.SINGH, J. -
(1.) THIS original side appeal is directed against judgment dated 25 -11 -2005 of a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby appellants SWP No.1167/2004 questioning order No. 172 of 2002 dated 23 -04 -2002 of
Superintendent of Police, Kulgam, was dismissed.
(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of this appeal, may be summarized thus:
(3.) BILAL Ahmad Bangroo was appointed as Constable in Jammu and Kashmir Police in District Srinagar, vide Inspector General, Jammu and
Kashmir Police, Kashmir Zone, Srinagars Order No.66 (c) of 1999 dated
March 16, 1999. This does not appear to be a regular appointment.
However, after a gap of few months, appellant appeared and qualified all
requisite tests for appointment as Constable and was, accordingly, so
appointed vide Government Order No.437 of 1999 dated 07 -05 -1999. The
appellant appears to have been transferred after about one and a half
year to District Police Lines, Kulgam. It further appears from the
records that the appellant did not join his new place of posting for a
considerable period, whereafter Superintendent of Police, Kulgam, issued
order No.172 of 2002 dated 23 -04 -2002 after recording his satisfaction
that the appellant had not proved to be a good police official especially
during his probationary period.
The appellant filed SWP No. 121/2004 in this Court, seeking a mandamus against the official respondents to allow him to discharge his
duties, besides seeking Arrears, of salary from January, 2000 along with
interest @ 24% per annum. This petition, on objections by the respondents
that the petitioner stood discharged from service vide order No. 172 of
2002 of SP, Kulgam, was, however, dismissed. It was after the dismissal of this writ petition that SWP No. 1167/2004 was filed by the appellant
questioning order No. 172 of 2002 dated 23rd of April, 2002. This writ
petition was filed on the premise that principles of natural justice had
no been followed and opportunity of hearing had not been afforded to the
appellant before passing the order impugned in the writ petition. It was
urged by the appellant that protection available under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India and Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and
Kashmir, had not been provided to him. Appellant further urged that Rule
359 of J&K - Police Manual had not been followed by the respondents in passing the order impugned in the writ petition.
Appellants submissions were considered by the learned Single
Judge, who, relying upon State of Punjab and others v. Sukhwinder Singh,
reported us AIR 2005 SCW 3477 (AIR 2005 SC 2960), dismissed the writ
petition because no illegality was found in the order impugned in the
writ petition. Learned Single Judge recorded a finding that conclusions
reached at by the respondents were based on the ground of prolonged
absence of the petitioner from duty, for which no satisfactory cause had
been given by the petitioner.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.