- (1.) PETITIONER came to be appointed as Constable vide order No. 579 of 1999 dated 26 -4 -1999 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udhampur and was allowed Belt No. 108/U. The appointment of petitioner was subject to C.I.D. verification, as alleged. It is stated that petitioners brother was involved in some militant activities and an FIR No. 62/99 was registered on 19 -11 -1999 for offence under section 212 RPC. Petitioner was also involved and arrested in the said FIR. Based upon aforesaid circumstances, respondent -5 passed order No. 417 of 2000 dated 27 -3 -2000 discharging the petitioner from service with immediate effect , in view of his arrest in FIR No. 62/99.
(2.) WRIT petition SWP No. 435/2000 was filed by petitioner challenging the aforesaid order. This writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 22 -5 -2000 with the following directions: " In the face of statement made on behalf of petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to examine the case of petitioner in accordance with law after final decision of criminal prosecution that is pending against the petitioner on the basis of FIR no.62/99, P.S. Gool u/s 212 RPC and proceed accordingly. It is further directed and clarified whether to retain the petitioner in service in case he is acquitted shall be determined by the respondents on the basis of material that may available with them. Mere acquittal of petitioner by the court will not be enough for the petitioner to claim reinstatement, if the respondents have other material to deny such benefit to him. "
(3.) IN the meanwhile, charge sheet was produced regarding FIR No. 62/99 and petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 29 -11 -2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gool in case titled State Vs. Mohd. Rafi. It appears that after acquittal, petitioner filed contempt petition being COA(SW) No. 66 -E/01 for alleged non -compliance of the order dated 22 -5 -2000 passed in SWP No. 435/2000. During the pendency of this contempt petition, representation filed by him came to be rejected vide order No. 276 of 2001 dated 7 -8 -2001 and petitioner was denied reinstatement to service. Relevant paragraph dealing with the ground for rejection reads as under: " Whereas in terms of the representation filed by the constable and in compliance of the directive of Honble High Court vie its order dated 22 -5 -2000 the question of reinstatement of the constable was considered and it was found that the constable being an upper ground worker of H.M. Outfit and was involved in providing information food to the militants his case for reinstatement at this stage is not prima -facie made out. There is therefore, no force in the prayer of the constable for his reinstatement as prayed by him in his representation.";