HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Ab Rehman Wani
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) WHILE posted as an ASI in police Department, petitioner was placed under suspension by SP, Budgam on 31.07.1987 after conduct of inquiry,
Dy.SP, HQ suggested forfeiture of his two annual increments but the SSP
did not agree and instead recommended his removal from service to
concerned Dy. Inspector General of Police whereupon Director General
Police issued a show cause notice to him on 15.09.1988 to show cause as
to why he may not be removed from service, which was challenged by him in
this court through a writ petition bearing No. 1687/88 which was allowed
vide order dated: 3.8.1995 with quashment of charge sheet and show cause
notice dated: 31.12.1987 asking respondents to restore petitioner back to
the position obtaining prior to 30.07.1987 and reinstate him accordingly
alongwith all consequential benefits whereafter petitioner was so
reinstated but however a denovo inquiry was directed against him and SP
HQs appointed as Inquiry Officer. Challenging the order of denovo inquiry
as incompetent the petitioner challenged the same through another writ
petition being SWP No. 1487/98 wherein the inquiry proceedings were
stayed. During pendency of said petition, respondents issued order No.
348 of 1997 whereby eligible officers of executive police brought on promotion list "E" from the year 1991 but the petitioner not given
benefit of order dated: 11.11.1997 which prompted him to file CMP No.
2819/2002 to challenge the same which was however dismissed by this Court on 11.04.2002 with an observation that said order i.e. No. 3478 of 1997
dated: 11.11.1997 provided the petitioner with a fresh cause of action
and hence this petition for impugning the same on the ground that even
though not brought on promotion list "E" under said order at his
appropriate place in terms of seniority the petitioner has no been given
independent charge of a Police station as was required to be done in
terms of Rules 390 and 392 of Police Rules which practically would mean
that promotion list aforesaid in respect of petitioner has not become
operative. Other part of the grievance is that the promotion list
contains a mention that petitioners promotion to the rank of SI would be
subject to the outcome of denovo inquiry if and when conducted, and the
writ petition No. 1485/96 presently pending in the court. Accordingly the
petitioner prays for a direction for implementation of aforesaid
promotion list in accordance with Rules 390 and 392 aforementioned.
Materials appended with the petition include copies of relevant
administrative and court orders.
(2.) IN their reply respondents while stating that while posted in Police Station, Budgam and investigating a criminal case under FIR No.
160/87 and 161/87 registered respectively under sections 380 and 392 RPC, the petitioner as Investigating Officer Police, was found to have
returned 57 seized Golden Coins to one Gh. Qadir Sofi after retaining 13
out of 70 recovered from him and seized under a memo, and also committed
pilferage of Rs. 800/ - while reflecting the quantum of seized cash as Rs.
4050/ - only instead of Rs. 4805/ - and misappropriating the same. Taking as a serious note of said misconduct on his part, authorities had placed
him under suspension vide order No. 481 of 1987 dated: 31.07.1987 and the
inquiry entrusted to Dy.SP HQs who recommended forfeiture of two annual
increments against him to which as already said, the SSP did not agree
and he forwarded the case to higher authorities for petitioners removal
from service which ultimately culminated in issuance of charge sheet
against petitioner which was later quashed by this court in SWP No.
689/88 consequent whereupon denovo inquiry was ordered against petitioner which is in abeyance under a stay order purporting to have been passed by
this court in writ petition No. 1485/96. Meanwhile it is admitted that
petitioner has been brought on promotion list "E" as claimed by him vide
order No. 3478 of 1997 dated: 11.11.1997. During course of threshold
submissions the counsels for parties have reiterated the contents of
(3.) IN so far as facts and circumstances attending the matter are concerned they are all matters of recorded and well documented, right
from first suspension of petitioner in 1987, consequent inquiry and the
following charge sheet, institution of writ petition and quashment of
chargesheet, and consequent reinstatement of petitioner with all
consequential benefits, denovo inquiry after disposal of first writ
petition and institution of second one against denovo inquiry, stay of
proceedings thereupon and the order bringing petitioner on promotion list
"E" and admitted by both sides. Within that admitted circumstantial
backdrop arises petitioners claim of giving consequential effect in terms
of Rules 390 and 392 of Police Rules to the promotion list "E" for giving
him independent charge of a police station etc.
Perusal of the order dated: 11.11.1997 directing placement of petitioner into promotion list "E" as aforesaid, reveals that it is in
three parts. Under first and third the petitioner has been brought on
promotion list "E" of executive of Kashmir zone for the year 1991 in
continuation of PHQs order No. 672 of 1991 dated: 05.06.1991 at the
appropriate place of seniority and placed below one Ghulam Hyder No.
943/NGO and above Nazir Ahmad No. 1100/NGO in order of seniority; and in the second his promotion to the rank of SI has been kept subject to out
come of denovo inquiry if and when conducted in pursuance of decisions of
this Court in his pending writ petition No. 1485/96. In so far as the
second part is concerned, the grievance projected by petitioner is that
in terms of disposal of his earlier writ petition being No. 1689/1988,
the denovo inquiry could not have been ordered; but that part is pending
in other writ petition aforesaid being No. 1485/96 and cannot be
simultaneously agitated in this petition which to that extent accordingly
appears to be barred.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.