Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Swaran Lal vs Jammu & Kashmir Police on 7 April, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 1099/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 1099/2020
Reserved on: - 06.10.2025
Pronounced on: - 07.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Swaran Lal, Age 58 years S/o Dharam Chand R/o Ward No. 9, Tehsil
R S Pura, Jammu, (J & K State).
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Suresh Kumar)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner-Secretary to
Government, Home Department, J & K Government, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar.
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jammu.
3. Additional, Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jammu.
4. Commandant, IR 4th Battalion, Khanikot, Batmaloo, Srinagar.
...Respondent
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 1099/2020
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.3174/2019 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.1099/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) Writ of Certiorari: Seeking quashment of order bearing No. 357 of 2002 dated 08-03-2002 issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service as constable.
b) MANDAMUS Commanding and directing respondents to reinstate the Petitioner back into the service along with all consequential benefits of service.
c) MANDAMUS: Commanding upon the respondent No. 3 to produce the entire record of inquiry before the Hon'ble Court.
d) Further Writ of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondents to pay salary regularly and further all the arrears and allowances as admissible under relevant rules due in favour of the petitioner also be paid, in the interest of justice, equity and fairness.
e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to which the petitioner may be found entitled to by this Hon'ble court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: TA 1099/2020
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
a) The applicant initially approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by way of SWP No. 3174/2019 seeking quashment of Order No. 357 of 2002 dated 08.03.2002 whereby he was removed from service as Constable in J&K Police and for consequential relief of reinstatement with service benefits.
Upon constitution of the Tribunal, the said writ petition came to be transferred and registered as the present Transfer Application.
b) The case of the applicant, as projected in the pleadings, is that he was appointed as Constable in the J&K Police on 28.12.1982 and served the department with dedication and sincerity. During the course of service, he earned promotions to the rank of Selection Grade Constable in November 1990 and thereafter to the rank of Head Constable on 15.07.1997. He was subsequently transferred from JKAP 8th Battalion to IRP 4th Battalion and joined at Khani Kote in September 1998.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: TA 1099/2020
c) According to the applicant, while serving in the said Battalion
in the year 1999, he developed serious neurotic depressive illness for which he remained under treatment of a specialist doctor. It is pleaded that during this period he was also implicated in a criminal case registered as FIR No. 01/1999 at Police Station Talwara. He was directed by his Commandant to attend court proceedings at Reasi. The applicant claims that he informed his superior officers about his medical condition and sought assistance for attending the proceedings. However, while proceeding towards his home, he allegedly suffered a severe neurotic attack and became unconscious, resulting in prolonged medical treatment spanning several years.
d) It is further pleaded that during intermittent periods when his health improved, he approached his Company Headquarters and informed his superiors about his illness and absence. He asserts that he submitted verbal and written representations requesting permission to resume duties but was neither afforded any hearing nor subjected to any regular departmental enquiry. The applicant contends that he continuously remained under HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 1099/2020 treatment from May 1999 to December 2012 and only thereafter came to know that he had been removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence.
e) Upon obtaining a certified copy of the removal order in January 2013, the applicant submitted representations before higher authorities seeking reinstatement. He also preferred further representations in June 2018 and September 2018. As no relief was granted, he approached the High Court challenging the removal order primarily on the grounds that no show-cause notice or departmental enquiry was conducted and that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the J&K Police Rules.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing objections, asserting that no fundamental or statutory right of the applicant has been violated and that the present HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 1099/2020 application is devoid of merit as well as barred by delay and laches.
b) It is submitted that the applicant was appointed as Constable in December 1982, promoted as Selection Grade Constable in November 1990 and later as Head Constable in July 1997. After his transfer to IRP 4th Battalion, he was required to appear before the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Reasi in connection with FIR No. 01/1999. However, instead of attending the court proceedings, he absented himself from duty without authorization. The respondents have detailed several instances from May 1999 onwards where the applicant remained absent for prolonged periods despite being permitted to rejoin duty on multiple occasions.
c) Commandant IR-IV Bn after finding him habitual of absence from duties had served him a show cause notice vide No. Estt/IR-IV/11063-65 dated 22-09-1999, asking him, as to why he should not be removed from services in case he fails to resume his duties within three days of the receipt of show cause notice. Whereas, consequent upon the show cause notice, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 1099/2020 petitioner had resumed his duties 27-09-1999 but again absented un-authorisedly on the very same day in utter disregard of rules/norms of the department. Accordingly, another show cause notice was issued/served upon him by the Commandant IRP-4th Battalion vide his office endorsement No Estt/Notice-PC/12878 dated 24.10.2000 asking him as to why he should not be removed from service in case he fails to resume his duties within three days of the receipt of notice which was received by him on 27-10-1999. Consequent upon the show case notice, petitioner resumed his duties on 01-11-
1999, however, after remaining present for (07) days he again absented un-authorizedly on 08-11-1999 and reported back on 01-12-1999. On 08-12-1999, he once again absented from duties and remained at large till 08-03-2000, the date he resumed his duties after he had been permitted by DIG AP Jammu. Despite, providing of number of opportunities, petitioner could not mend his behavior and had again absented repeatedly on five different occasions w.e.f 20.03.2000 up to 24-10-2000 which is elucidated as under: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 1099/2020 S.No From To Total days 01 20.03.2000 27.03.2000 (07) days 02 17.04.2000 21.04.2000 (03) days 03 04.05.2000 17.07.2000 (65) days 04 09.07.2000 24.08.2000 (46) days 05 30.08.2000 24.10.2000 (54) days
d) The respondents further submit that the applicant was placed under suspension on account of gross negligence and was repeatedly issued show-cause notices directing him to resume duties, failing which disciplinary action would follow. It is stated that although the applicant occasionally rejoined duty after receiving such notices, he continued to absent himself HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 1099/2020 repeatedly for extended durations. His conduct was found to be habitual and detrimental to discipline in the police force.
e) It is also averred that before passing the final order of removal, ample opportunities were provided to the applicant to explain his conduct and resume duty. His service record was even forwarded for departmental enquiry; however, the enquiry could not be completed because the applicant again absented himself. Ultimately, considering his persistent unauthorized absence and lack of response to repeated notices, he was removed from service vide Order No. 357 of 2002 dated 08.03.2002 with effect from the date of his last absence.
f) The respondents have further contended that the applicant remained silent for several years after his removal and neither filed any appeal nor sought review before the competent authority. His first representation seeking a certified copy of the removal order was made only in December 2012, which indicates that he was not interested in continuing service. The subsequent representation made in 2018 was considered but HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 1099/2020 found devoid of merit and was accordingly consigned to records.
g) On these grounds, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the application as being time-barred and lacking substantive merit.
5. In the Rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents the petitioner has averred as follows: -
a) In rejoinder to the objections filed by the respondents, the applicant has denied the averments made in the reply and reiterated the grounds taken in the original application. It is asserted that the respondents have wrongly contended that no fundamental or legal right of the applicant has been infringed and that the applicant has no cause of action to approach the Tribunal. The applicant maintains that his removal from service was arbitrary and in violation of statutory provisions as well as principles of natural justice.
b) The applicant has admitted the factual position regarding his appointment as Constable in December 1982, his subsequent promotions to Selection Grade Constable in November 1990 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 1099/2020 and Head Constable in July 1997, and his transfer to IRP 4th Battalion in October 1997. However, the remaining allegations regarding habitual unauthorized absence have been specifically denied. It is contended that during the relevant period the applicant was suffering from neurotic depressive illness and had duly informed his Company Commandant about his medical condition. According to the applicant, he had requested that a representative be deputed to accompany him for attending the court proceedings, but instead he was orally advised to proceed on leave. While returning home, he allegedly suffered a serious neurotic attack and became unconscious for a considerable period.
c) The applicant has further denied that he deliberately absented himself from duty or ignored departmental directions. He asserts that whenever his medical condition improved, he reported to his superior officers and submitted written representations seeking permission to resume duty. He contends that despite such efforts, he was never served with any formal notice or charge-sheet, nor was he afforded an opportunity to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 1099/2020 participate in any departmental enquiry. According to him, the respondents have failed to place any documentary proof on record to establish service of show-cause notices or conduct of an enquiry.
d) It is also pleaded that the respondents themselves have admitted that the applicant was allowed to rejoin duty on several occasions, which, according to the applicant, demonstrates that the department was aware of his medical condition and that his absence was not intentional. The applicant has denied the allegation that he was not interested in continuing in service and has described the respondents' version as a fabricated attempt to justify an unlawful removal order passed without following due procedure.
e) With regard to delay, the applicant has stated that he had been continuously representing his case before departmental authorities after coming to know about the removal order. He claims that he submitted representations in January 2013 and thereafter in June 2018, though he does not possess copies of all such representations. According to him, the respondents failed HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 1099/2020 to take any action on his pleas and he was ultimately compelled to seek judicial redress.
f) On these premises, the applicant has reiterated that the impugned removal order was passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without granting him an opportunity of hearing, thereby rendering the action illegal and liable to be set aside.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. The present Transfer Application has arisen out of SWP No. 3174/2019, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and was registered before this Tribunal as T.A. No. 1099/2020. By way of the present proceedings, the applicant has called in question Order No. 357 of 2002 dated 08.03.2002, whereby he came to be removed from service from the post of Constable/Head Constable in the J&K Police. He has also sought reinstatement with consequential service benefits.
8. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant was initially appointed as Constable in the J&K Police in December, 1982. During service, he HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA 1099/2020 earned promotion as Selection Grade Constable in the year 1990 and was thereafter promoted as Head Constable in the year 1997. He was transferred from JKAP 8th Battalion to IRP 4th Battalion and joined there in September, 1998. The grievance projected by the applicant is that during the period when he was serving in IRP 4th Battalion, he developed serious neurotic depressive illness. According to him, on account of such illness, he became medically incapacitated and remained under treatment for a long period. His further case is that though he intermittently approached the department whenever his condition improved and requested permission to resume duties, no lawful enquiry as required under the relevant rules was ever conducted, nor was he afforded adequate opportunity of hearing before he was visited with the extreme penalty of removal from service vide order dated 08.03.2002.
9. The respondents have resisted the claim and have taken the stand that the applicant was habitually absenting himself from duty without authorization from May, 1999 onwards. According to them, several opportunities were afforded to him to mend his conduct; repeated show cause notices were issued; on many occasions he resumed duty HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: TA 1099/2020 after receipt of such notices but again absented himself. The respondents have pleaded that his repeated absence was wholly incompatible with the discipline expected in a police force and that after sufficient opportunity and repeated indulgence, the competent authority was constrained to remove him from service. The respondents have also raised the plea of delay and laches by asserting that the applicant questioned the order only after a very long lapse of time.
10. The applicant, in rejoinder, has denied that he was a habitual absentee in the sense projected by the respondents. His stand is that his absence was occasioned by a serious medical condition and that whenever he was in a position to respond, he informed the superior authorities and sought to rejoin duty. He has further pleaded that the respondents have not shown compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards which were required to be observed before imposing a major penalty of removal from service and that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with on that ground alone.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order cannot stand legal scrutiny because it visits the applicant with a major HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA 1099/2020 civil consequence and yet the record, as placed before the Tribunal, does not establish that a regular enquiry conforming to law was completed before passing the order of removal. It has been argued that mere issuance of show cause notices asking the applicant to resume duty would not, by itself, satisfy the requirement of a proper disciplinary process where the delinquent official is to be informed of the substance of accusations, afforded reasonable opportunity to explain his conduct, permitted to adduce such material as may be available to him and where the disciplinary authority must arrive at a conclusion only after following a fair procedure. It is further submitted that even if the respondents had serious allegations regarding unauthorized absence, the same could not have been made the basis of a removal order in breach of the principles of natural justice.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was a member of a disciplined force and his long and repeated unauthorized absence could not have been tolerated indefinitely. It has been argued that the department showed more than adequate indulgence; several notices were issued to him; he was HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: TA 1099/2020 repeatedly allowed to rejoin; and still he failed to mend his ways. According to the respondents, the conduct of the applicant clearly showed that he was no longer interested in serving the department and therefore the order of removal calls for no interference. It has also been submitted that the challenge is belated.
13. The first and central question which arises for consideration is not whether unauthorized absence in a disciplined force is a serious matter. There can be no two opinions on that proposition. A police force is indeed a disciplined force and unauthorized absence, more particularly repeated absence, is a grave matter affecting discipline and efficiency. However, the seriousness of the allegation cannot dispense with the requirement of following a lawful procedure. The more severe the punishment, the greater is the obligation of the authority to act fairly, transparently and in adherence to the principles of natural justice.
14. In the present case, the respondents have laid considerable stress on the fact that several show cause notices were issued to the applicant from time to time and that on receipt of such notices he resumed duties on some occasions. These facts, even if taken at face value, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: TA 1099/2020 may show repeated absence and may also show that the department was dissatisfied with his conduct. But that is not the same thing as proving that before inflicting the major penalty of removal from service, a proper departmental enquiry, consistent with the applicable rules and basic principles of natural justice, was actually concluded. A notice calling upon an employee to resume duty or explain why action be not taken cannot automatically substitute the due process required before passing a stigmatic and punitive order having the effect of terminating long service already rendered by the employee.
15. The applicant has specifically pleaded that no enquiry officer was appointed, no statement of allegations was properly served, no evidence was recorded in his presence, and no real opportunity of defence was afforded to him. The respondents, though asserting that sufficient opportunities were granted and that the service record was at one stage sent for holding an enquiry regarding suspension/absence, have themselves stated that such enquiry could not be completed because the applicant again absented himself. This stand of the respondents assumes importance. If the departmental enquiry, as contemplated by law, could not be held or completed, then the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 :: TA 1099/2020 removal order based on the misconduct of repeated unauthorized absence could not have been validly passed without ensuring compliance with the minimum procedural safeguards required in law.
16. The Tribunal is conscious that the applicant has approached the Court/Tribunal after considerable lapse of time. Ordinarily, such delay would weigh heavily against grant of discretionary relief. At the same time, where the challenge is directed against an order of removal from service passed allegedly in violation of due process and where the respondents themselves rely upon repeated episodes of absence and notices rather than a completed enquiry, the matter cannot be thrown out merely on technicality without examining whether the foundational requirement of lawful procedure was observed. More so, when the applicant has set up a case that his absence was connected with serious medical condition. Whether that plea is genuine, exaggerated or untenable is itself a matter which properly falls within the domain of a regular enquiry and not summary assumption.
17. In our considered view, the record as available before this Tribunal does not justify sustaining the impugned removal order in its present form. If the respondents intended to impose the major penalty of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 20 :: TA 1099/2020 removal on the ground of misconduct involving repeated unauthorized absence, they were required to hold a proper enquiry in accordance with the rules and after observing the principles of natural justice. The material referred to in the reply does not persuade us to hold that such requirement stood duly satisfied. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is.
18. At the same time, this Tribunal is equally of the view that the facts pleaded by the applicant do not justify straightaway granting him clean reinstatement with all consequential benefits as a matter of course. The allegation against him is of repeated unauthorized absence over a long period. The respondents have furnished a detailed chronology of such absence. The applicant, on the other hand, seeks to explain the same on the basis of neurotic depressive illness and claims intermittent reporting to the department. These are disputed questions of fact which require examination by the competent departmental authority in a properly constituted enquiry. Therefore, the ends of justice would be met not by granting final exoneration at this stage, but by setting aside the impugned removal order and permitting the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with law.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: TA 1099/2020
19. Such a course would balance the rights of both sides. It would ensure that the applicant is not non-suited on the basis of an order passed without adequate procedural safeguards. Simultaneously, it would protect the legitimate interest of the department by allowing it to examine the charge of unauthorized absence in a fair and lawful manner. The applicant would have full liberty in such enquiry to produce medical material, representations, or any other relevant defence in support of his case. The respondents shall also be at liberty to rely upon the service record, absence particulars, notices and other official record in support of the charge. The enquiry authority shall consider the matter independently, objectively and without being influenced by any observation made in this order on the merits of the allegations.
20. Consequently, the Transfer Application is disposed of in the following terms. Order No. 357 of 2002 dated 08.03.2002, whereby the applicant was removed from service, is set aside. However, instead of directing unconditional reinstatement with final service benefits, the respondents are granted liberty to initiate and conclude a fresh departmental enquiry against the applicant in respect of the allegations HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: TA 1099/2020 relating to unauthorized absence, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and after adhering fully to the principles of natural justice. The applicant shall be served with the substance of allegations/charge, supplied all material proposed to be relied upon, afforded reasonable opportunity to file his reply, to produce defence evidence including medical record, and to participate in the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law.
21. The enquiry so directed shall be conducted by the competent authority and be concluded, as far as practicable, within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. Upon culmination of the enquiry, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned final order in accordance with law.
22. It is made clear that the applicant's entitlement to reinstatement, continuity of service, pay, allowances, seniority or any other consequential benefit shall remain subject to and governed by the final outcome of the enquiry. In case the applicant is exonerated or the charges are not established in accordance with law, the competent authority shall regulate his service position and consequential benefits in accordance with the final order that may be passed. On the other HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: TA 1099/2020 hand, if the charges are proved in a lawful enquiry, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the question of back wages and other monetary benefits shall also abide by the final decision taken in the enquiry proceedings and no automatic monetary benefit shall flow merely by reason of this order.
23. The parties shall cooperate in early conclusion of the enquiry. The applicant shall participate in the proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Failure on the part of the applicant to participate despite due notice shall permit the enquiry authority to proceed further in accordance with law.
24. With the above observations and directions, the Transfer Application stands partly allowed. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV