NAJEEB ULLAH Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1986-10-6
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 10,1986

Najeeb Ullah Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) IN May, 1983 the petitioner was posted as a Head C: -stable in Police Station, Lalpora (Kupwara). He was entrusted with the investigation .of a case arising out of FIR No. 33 of 1983 under Sections 336/332/427 R. P. C, and In that connection Gulla Lone and Rehman Ganai were wanted to be interrogated by the petitioner who made a search for them and ultimately went to Police Station, Vilgam (Kupwara). Both Gulla Lone and Rehman Ganai were found present it the police station. The petitioner sought the custody of Gulla Lone and Rehman Ganai for interrogation and scrutinised the Daily Diary of the Folic Station but did not find any entry regarding the arrest of both these persons therein. The petitioner interrogated both Gulla Lone and Rehmen Ganai and subsequently released them on bail in the case which he was investigating. He, however, entered a report in the Daily Diary of Police Station, Vilgam, under No. 10 regarding the action taken by him at the Police Station recording therein about the presence of the aforesaid two persons in the pick up without any record justifying their presence or detention in the police station. The said entry was made by him on 18 -5 -1983 in the absence of S. H. O., Police Station, Vilgam. On 19 -5 -1983 the then S, H. O, Police Station, Vilgam, found the entry to be objectionable and false and he submitted a written report to the D. P. O. Kupwara, in which, inter alia, it was stated .that Gulla Lone and Rehman Ganai, the two bad characters, had beep brought to the police station in connection with the interrogation of cases arising out of FIR No. 129 of 1982 and No. 23 of 1983 both under sections 457/380 R. P. C. of Police Station, .Vilgam and therefore, the report made by the petitioner in the Daily Diary of the Police Station in the S. H. O. making allegations against the S. H. O. regarding the detention of the aforesaid two persons, was false and frivolous, made with some ulterior motive and that the petitioner had committed a serious breach of discipline by making such a report and that the matter called for a departmental inquiry against him. Pursuant to the receipt of the report of S. H. O. Police Station, Vilgam, departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by the competent authority. The Dy. S. P. Kupwara, placed the petitioner under suspension on 23 -6 -1983 pending inquiry against him. It appears that a preliminary inquiry was thereafter conducted against the petitioner and the statements of the S. H. O., Head Constable and constable No. 308, were recorded by the Superintendent of Police, Kupwara, on 18 -11 -1983. Thereafter,, on 25 -11 -1983, a formal charge -sheet (Annexure - -P5) was drawn up against the petitioner. The said charge sheet detailed the allegations against the petitioner and stated; "This action on your part speaks of great .negligence, mis -use of powers, dereliction of duty and breach of discipline. This act of yours, cannot be without any ulterior motive and tantamounts to gross misconduct of your part. Show cause why you should not be punished? Produce defence, if any." The petitioner submitted ins reply (Annexure P/6) giving -his version of the whole episode and depriving the allegations contained in the charge -sheet Respondent No. 3 thereafter issued order No. 2 of 1984 dated 3 -1 -1984 stating therein that he had gone through the record and found that the reply furnished by the petitioner was not based on facts. He held the against the petitioner to be grave and accordingly punished the petitioner by direction. 1. that HC be reinstated with immediate effect and the period of his suspension treated as on duty as he was present in DPL Kupwara during this period. However, LO, DPL Kupwara, will submit a certificate in this connection to the DPO. 2. THE annual increment of HC is stopped for a period of one year from the date same falls due to him to serve him as a corrective in future."
(2.) Against the punishment noticed above, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Respondent No. 2 herein, on 13 -3 -1984. While that appeal was still pending with the DIG of Police, he (DIG of Police, respdt. No. 2) issued another show cause notice (Annexure P/9 17 -11 -1984). That show cause notice reads as follows: "Whereas you HC Najeeb Ullah, No. 4/KP, District Kupwara, while posted to P/S Lalpora, as Investigating Head Constable, were entrusted with the investigation of the case FIR No. 33 /83, U/s 336/332/447 RFC, in which two persons, namely, Rehman Ganai of Kupwara and Gulla Lone wacher Khoti were involved, on 19 -5 -84, P/s Vilgam, reported vide DO. No. 19, that you had gone to the P/s Vilgam and recorded objectionable and baseless allegations regarding so called unlawful confinement of the above mentioned DCs in P/S Lock up. You also mentioned (hat SHO P/S Kupwara, had committed offence U/s 343 RPC without any logical reason, although concerned persons BCs were under arrest in case FIR No. 29/82, U/s 457/380 P/s Vilgam. Whereas a departmental enquiry was conducted against you and whereas the enquiry officer has recommended for stoppage of your annual increment for a period of one year against you. Whereas I am of the opinion that the punishment so recommended against you is not commensurate with the nature of guilt for having broken the chain of discipline and violated rule 519 of J&K Police Mammal, by entering the false report in the DD. Therefore, I, A. M. Watali, IPS, DIG Kashmir, call upon you to explain as to why the punishment by the enquiry officer, be not enhanced, to your removal from service, as undesirable police officer. Your explanation should reach to this office within seven days from the date of receipt of this notice, and you will also appear in person before me in my office chamber on Monday following the receipt of above notice for personal hearing."
(3.) THE petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the show cause notice propping the enhancement of the punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 3 vide his communication dated 1 12 -1984, and drew the attention of the DIG of Police, respondent No. 2 to the appeal .which had been preferred by the petitioner against the punishment imposed on him. vide order dated 22 -2 -1985, the DIG Police, respondent No. 2, disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner and rejected the reply to the show cause notice as given by the petitioner and ordered that "the HC is reverted to the rank of SG Constable for a period of two years" The petitioner has called in question the chargesheet so also the proceedings emanating therefrom and culminating in the order dated 22 -2 -1985 attached as Annexure P/11 to the petition. The grievance of the petitioner as spelt out in the writ petition and. canvassed at the bar is that after the charge -sheet (Annexure P/5) was drawn up against him no evidence was recorded by the inquiry officer in support of the charges and even the evidence already recorded during the primary inquiry was not brought on record and without giving any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner he had been punished. It is further the case of the petitioner that notice for enhancement was issued to the petitioner while the appeal was still pending and that it was against the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice that his appeal should have been disposed of after the notice for enhancement of punishment was issued to him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.