Mohammad Rafiq Bhat vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Others

Sanjeev Kumar, J

In this petition, petitioner is, inter alia, seeking quashment of order No.87 of 2017 dated 31.03.2017 issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Armed), Kashmir Range, Srinagar, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of "reduced to minimum pay scale" pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the Commandant IRP 18th Bn. ( hereinafter referred as "Enquiry Officer").

It is worthwhile to note that along with the petitioner, eight other police personnel, working at the relevant point of time in 18th Battalion, J-Coy, were held guilty of misconduct in an enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer and imposed different penalties upon them. Amongst the aforesaid personnel, Mr. Baldev Raj and Javid Ahmed approached this Court by filing SWP Nos.1524/2017 and 1520/2017 respectively. This Court in an elaborate judgment passed on 03.10.2018 in SWP No. 1524/2017 in case of Baldev Raj, held whole action of inflicting penalty upon him vitiated in law. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition filed by other delinquent employee Javid Ahmed i.e. SWP No. 1520/2017 was also allowed vide judgment of this Court dated 09.04.2019.

The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the aforesaid judgments. This Court has found that the enquiry conducted against the delinquent police personnel, including Baldev Raj and Javid Ahmed, was vitiated as the procedure laid down in Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, had not been followed.

What is stated by this Court in para 13 of the judgment rendered in the case of Baldev Raj (SWP No. 1524/2017) is, for facility of reference, reproduced as under:

"Having held thus, the only question which is left to be determined is as to what course should be adopted in the instant case and what relief should be granted to the petitioner. As noted above, the whole inquiry is vitiated right from the very beginning and as such, this Court is left with no option but to quash the whole proceedings including the orders impugned. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, the charge sheet, the enquiry proceedings as also the Order dated 31.03.2017 and the Order dated 01.06.2017 are quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits which would accure to him upon quashing of the orders impugned. This, however, does not mean that the respondents cannot initiate denovo inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with provisions of the Rule 359 of the Police Rules and in consonance with the principles of natural justice as adumbrated in the case of Managing Director ECIL (supra)".

Since the joint enquiry against the petitioner was also conducted along with Baldev Raj and Javid Ahmed and once such enquiry, which has become basis for issuance of impugned orders has been held vitiated by this Court, the impugned orders against petitioner would also be rendered bad in the eyes of law.

This petition deserves to be allowed on the analogy of the aforesaid writ petitions and, accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to all the consequential benefits which would accrue upon quashing the impugned orders. This, however, would not mean that respondents cannot initiate de novo enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules and in consonance with principles of natural justice.

Disposed of along with connected CM(s).