Javid Ahmad Mir vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors.

M.S.LATIF, M (J) oral

01/ Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, sought the following reliefs :

02/ What emerges from the pleadings made in this O.A is that the petitioner - a Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments and portions of his suspension period were adversely regulated. Learned counsel submitted that the proceedings originated from FIR No. 77/2013 u/s 489-В, 489-C and 120-B RPC, were initiated against the petitioner, in which he was acquitted by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara, vide judgment dated 02.05.2024, on the grounds that the alleged recovery and confessional statements were not reliably proved, the witnesses materially contradicted one another, the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution, and the Investigating Officer, FSL Expert and other material witnesses were not examined.

03/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notwithstanding the aforesaid acquittal, the departmental inquiry initiated in April 2013 was concluded after an unexplained delay of nearly eleven years and, although the Enquiry Officer recommended only censure, the disciplinary authority imposed forfeiture of two increments without identifying any reliable departmental evidence establishing conscious possession, knowledge, circulation or conspiracy on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that the impugned orders erroneously treat police investigation as proof of guilt and the same are non-speaking and speculative, as it neither specifies as to whether forfeiture is temporary or permanent and with or without cumulative effect, nor does it lawfully regulate the entire suspension period.

04/ Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has served the respondent department for many years and has continued to discharge his duties after reinstatement. His complete service profile and absence of subsequent misconduct shall be substantiated from the official service record. Precisely put, learned counsel submitted that while the petitioner was posted in District Kupwara, an FIR No. 77/2013 came to be registered against him at Police Station Kupwara for offences under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B RPC. He was arrested on 19.04.2013 and placed under suspension vide order dated 20.04.2013. A departmental inquiry was thereafter ordered on 24.04.2013 and entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters Kupwara. However, he was enlarged on bail on 18.05.2013 and, accordingly, he reported at DPL, Kupwara, and resumed attendance while under suspension on 06.06.2013. He was thereafter attached to Police District Sopore and relieved with effect from 12.06.2013. It is submitted that the petitioner was reinstated into service by the Superintendent of Police, Police District Sopore, by order dated 07.07.2014 and he continued to serve the department. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of judgment, dated 02.05.2024, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara, acquitted the petitioner, holding that upon appreciation of the prosecution evidence, the material on record was wholly deficient and same had failed to connect the accused with the commission of the offences charged. The Court further observed that the alleged confessional statements were not proved, material witnesses including the Investigating Officer and FSL Expert were 4 withheld and even the FIR and other important documents were not properly proved and the prosecution failed to reliably establish recovery of counterfeit currency from the accused.

05/ Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation addressed to the SSP Kupwara, through proper channel, wherein the respondent No. 5, who had passed the original punishment order, treated it as a review and rejected it by order No. 378/2025 dated 18.07.2025, impugned herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that registration of an FIR, arrest, investigation and presentation of a challan are not proof of misconduct. The disciplinary authority was required to record an independent finding on the evidence adduced in the departmental inquiry under the applicable standard of proof. He submits that the petitioner, thereafter, again sought statutory departmental remedy in the form of another representation which too has not been decided thus far. It is stated that the impugned punishment has continuing adverse consequences upon the petitioner’s pay and consideration for promotion. The period from 19.05.2013 to 05.06.2013 has been treated as dies non without recording any finding of willful unauthorized absence. Furthermore, the period from 12.06.2013 to 07.07.2014 has remained unregulated for more than twelve years 5 despite the petitioner’s attachment and attendance in Police District Sopore.

06/ Be that as it may, after arguing the matter for a considerable period of time, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to treat this petition as comprehensive representation of the petitioner and decide the same as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

07/ Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that he has no objection if the present O.A is disposed of with appropriate directions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents.

08/ Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the material available on record.

09/ Having regard to the limited and innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present O.A is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat this petition together with all documents and annexures appended thereto as well as consider the grounds raised in the representations, filed by the petitioner earlier, as a comprehensive representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules and governing legal framework and Police Manual, of course, subject to the petitioner’s eligibility and entitlement under law and provided there is no legal impediment in doing so. Needful to be done within a period of five weeks’ from the date a certified copy of this order and copy of this O.A is served upon the respondents.

10/ In the backdrop of what has been discussed above, this O.A 1015/2026 is disposed of along with connected M.As, if any.