Manjit Singh vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others

In this petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to regularize his services as Follower w.e.f 23.03.2001, when one Sh. Mohd. Shokit was regularized as Constable, with all consequential benefits.

Briefly stated, the background facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are:

The petitioner after passing 11th Class examination, joined as Special Police Officer (SPO) in the Police Department of the State in the year, 1998. During his services as SPO, the petitioner claims to have participated in several anti-militancy operations. He was also part of the team of police personnel, which conducted an operation launched to flush out militants in Khenater area of District Poonch. During the search operations and the encounter that followed, two foreign militants were neutralized and a huge cache of arms and ammunitions recovered from the site of encounter. Keeping in view the significant role played by the petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Poonch recommended his case for being absorbed as Follower as he was found less in height. The other police personnel, who participated in the anti-militancy operations, however, were awarded cash awards. These recommendations were made by the SSP, Poonch vide his communication No. PA/Reward/2002/762-64/ST dated 07.02.2002. Prior to the aforesaid operation, the petitioner had also received a commendation certificate Class-III with a reward of Rs. 50/- in recognition of the excellent work done, which had resulted into apprehension of a gang of smugglers of medicines. The certificate of the then SSP, Poonch being order No. 878 dated 20.07.2001 bears the testimony. There are recommendations made in the year, 2002, 2004 and 2005 as well in favour of the petitioner by the SHO Police Station, Poonch vide his letters dated 02.02.2002, 24.11.2004 and 03.02.2005. While the case of the petitioner was pending consideration of the higher authorities, 3 SPOs namely Irshad Hussain, Jagjeet Singh and Aijaz Ahmed were appointed as Followers on operational grounds by the then Director General of Police vide his Order No. 3381 of 2005 dated 26.10.2005. Even in the year, 2001, one SPO namely Mohd. Shokit along with many others had been appointed as Constables in the J&K Police (Executive) on operational grounds.

Feeling cheated, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his services as well in terms of the recommendations made by the SHO Police Station concerned and SSP Poonch from time to time and also having regard to the exemplary performance of the petitioner on the anti-militancy front.

The respondents have filed their objections and have resisted the writ petition primarily on the ground that the recommendations made by the SSP, Poonch in favour of the petitioner were considered and rejected by the DIG Rajouri/Poonch Range vide his No. U.O Rwd/06/-02/66062 dated 12.02.2002 with the observation that the absorption of SPO as Follower recommended by the SSP was not in conformity with the order of Police Headquarter dated 07.01.2002. The stand taken by the respondents is that since the post of Follower is required to be filled up by way of Direct Recruitment and through Advertisement and, therefore, same cannot be utilized to regularize the services of the SPOs as Followers and that such power, if at all available, lies with respondent No. 2. Interestingly, the respondents have not indicated in their reply affidavit as to how the case of the petitioner was dealt with by respondent No. 2. The reason for skipping the reply in this regard is obvious. The DIG at his own level rejected the case of the petitioner and did not forward it to respondent No. 2, who, as per him, was the competent authority to take the decision. The respondents have also taken the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner stood discharged from the Police Department vide No. 839/2006 dated 10.07.2006 as his work and performance was not found satisfactory. This is, in pith and substance, the stand taken by the respondents to deny the relief of the regularization as Follower to the petitioner. The order of discharge dated 10.07.2006 is separately challenged by the petitioner in SWP No. 966/2007.

SWP No. 966/2007

The short grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that while the case of the petitioner for his regularization as Follower in the Police Department as recommended by the SSP, Poonch was under consideration of the higher authorities and in view of disinclination of the respondents to give the petitioner his due, the petitioner had moved this Court by way of SWP No. 702/2006, the respondents with a view to non-suit the petitioner and render his writ petition infructuous issued the impugned order of discharge. The impugned order of discharge has been assailed on the ground that the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was ever given to the petitioner and that the order impugned was a result of vendetta, for, the petitioner was discharged only to teach him a lesson for taking the respondents to the Court of law.

The respondents have resisted this petition also vehemently. In the objections, the respondents have justified the impugned order on the ground that it was passed in view of the unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that both the petitions filed by the petitioner deserve to be allowed. I will take the second petition first, i.e. SWP No. 966/2007.

Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as SPO in the year, 1998 and since then, he has been performing his duties in the Police Station, Poonch.

From the perusal of the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner, which is not refuted by the respondents, it is abundantly clear that performance of the petitioner, that too, on the anti-militancy front has, all along, remain satisfactory. SHO of Police Station concerned and the SSP, Poonch have, on more than one occasion, recognized the exemplary services rendered by the petitioner. The recommendations of the SSP, Poonch dated 07.02.2002 (supra) are significant and needs to be noticed. In the operation, which was undertaken to flush out the militants in Khenater area, there were in as many as 22 personnel, who had participated. SSP, Poonch, however, found the role played by the petitioner significant and recommended him to be regularized as Follower, whereas, in favour of other 21 participants only a cash award was sanctioned. The observations of the SSP, Poonch that the petitioner had fought with the militants bravely and without caring for his life cannot be lightly brushed aside. No less significant are the recommendations made by the SHO Police Station concerned where the petitioner had been working as SPO in the year, 2002, 2004 and 2005.

In view of the work and conduct displayed by the petitioner over the years, it is difficult to accept the plea of the respondents that he deserves to be discharged on account of unsatisfactory work and conduct. I am persuaded to agree with the plea urged on behalf of the petitioner that discharge order impugned was an act of vendetta by the SSP, Poonch, who was holding the position in the year, 2006, when the impugned order was passed. The timing of passing the impugned order of discharge lends evidence to the plea of the petitioner.

I find, absolutely, no justification to pass such order for discharging a person, who had given his sweat and blood to the nation and fought bravely in the anti-militancy operations. Learned counsel Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. A.G for the respondents could not show any material to justify the order impugned. In this background and for the reasons stated hereinabove, I find merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, allowed. Order impugned passed by the SSP, Poonch bearing No. Estt/06/11794-97/GB dated 11.07.2006 is quashed ab initio.

So far as SWP No. 702/2007 is concerned, it may be noted that the case of the petitioner for his regularization as Follower in terms of the recommendations made by the SSP, Poonch has not been rejected by the DIG Poonch/Rajouri Range on merits but on the ground that as per the instructions of the Police Headquarter, he was not competent to order such regularization as the post of Follower was a direct recruitment post and could only be filled up through advertisement and selection process. He, however, has very clearly stated that such power of regularization was available with respondent No. 2. He, however, has not explained as to why the case of the petitioner was not forwarded to respondent No. 2 to take appropriate decision. The petitioner has also brought on record two orders, one issued in the year, 2001 and other in the year, 2005, reference to which has been made hereinabove, which clearly reveal that the respondents had regularized the services of similarly situated persons prior to and after the recommendations made by the SSP, Poonch in favour of the petitioner. It is apparently a case of gross arbitrariness displayed by the respondents particularly the then Range head.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find merit in this petition as well and hold the petitioner entitled to be considered for appointment as Follower.

Let a decision in this regard be taken by respondent No. 2 in the light of observations made hereinabove within a period of two months from the date, a certified copy of this order is made available to him by the petitioner.

It may be clarified that the petitioner, if otherwise found eligible, shall be entitled to his regularization/appointment as Follower retrospectively w.e.f 12.02.2010, i.e. the date when the case of the petitioner was arbitrarily rejected by the DIG Rajouri/Poonch Range (Range Headquarter, Rajouri) with all consequential benefits.

In the result, both the petitions are allowed in the terms as above.