Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Jyoti Devi vs D/O Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 30 December, 2025
:: 1 :: TA /6689/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 6689/2020
Reserved on: - 07/08/2025
Pronounced on: - 30.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Jyoti Devi Age 28 year
D/o Sh. Dina Nath
W/o Sh. Amit Kumar
R/o Chack Taroo, P.O. Chandak,
Tehsil Mandi and District Poonch.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Ajay Bakshi)
Versus
1. State of J&K Through Commissioner Secretary Department of
Home Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2. Director General of Police, I.R.P, Jammu.
3. Inspector General of Police I.R.P, Jammu
4. Commandant 15th Bn., I.R.P, Jammu.
...Respondents
(Advocate: - Mr. Hunar Gupta, DAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA /6689/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WPC/335/2017 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.6689/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
a) With writ of Certiorari for quashing the discharge Order No. 288/2013 dated 24/5/2013 passed by the respondent no.3.
b) Writ of Certiorari, quashing the Order No.26 of 2016 dated 7-
12-2016, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Order No. 288/2013 dated 24/5/2013 has been dismissed/rejected by the Respondent No.3.
c) With writ of Mandamus for commanding the official respondents to Re-Instate the petitioner on her job and to allow the petitioner to join her duty and reimburse pay, allowance, and other benefits to petitioner from the date of discharge order.
d) Any other writ petition or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in her pleadings are as follows: -
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA /6689/2020
a) The applicant is a citizen of India and a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir. She was appointed as a Constable in the Indian Reserve Police (IRP) (Armed) vide Order No. 360 of 2009 dated 21.05.2009 and was allotted Regimental No. 612/IRP-15 Bn. Pursuant thereto, she joined duty and was deputed for basic training at SKPA, Udhampur, which she successfully completed in May 2010. Thereafter, the applicant continued to discharge her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors and completed the prescribed period of probation spanning from 21.05.2009 to 20.05.2012.
b) It is pleaded that during the course of service, the applicant got married and thereafter delivered a child on 20.04.2013 at District Hospital, Poonch. According to the applicant, she was under the bona fide belief that her husband had duly informed the department and obtained sanction of maternity leave on her behalf. Subsequently, in January 2014, she allegedly suffered from Viral Hepatitis and remained under medical treatment on the advice of doctors for a considerable period. During this phase also, she claims to have relied upon assurances given by HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA /6689/2020 her husband that the department had been informed and leave had been sanctioned.
c) In March 2015, when the applicant approached the office of the Commandant for resuming her duties, she was informed that she had already been discharged from service in July 2013. The applicant asserts that she was never served with any notice nor made aware of any departmental proceedings and that the discharge order was deliberately withheld from her despite repeated requests. Eventually, upon her written request, a copy of the discharge order was supplied to her in the year 2016, which according to her, did not even mention the date of issuance.
d) Aggrieved by the said discharge, the applicant submitted representations and statutory appeal, asserting that her absence was neither wilful nor deliberate, but was occasioned due to maternity and serious illness, coupled with the fact that she had been misled by her husband. It is contended that the discharge order casts stigma upon her service career and has been passed without issuance of show cause notice, without holding any HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA /6689/2020 regular departmental inquiry as mandated under Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules and in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The applicant further pleads that having already completed three years of service, the provisions of Rule 187 of the Police Manual were not attracted to her case.
e) Earlier, the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing SWP No. 2077/2016, which was disposed of on 28.09.2016 with a direction to the appellate authority to decide her appeal by a speaking order. However, the appeal was rejected vide Order No. 26 of 2016 dated 07.12.2016 without affording her an opportunity of hearing and without proper application of mind. Hence, the present Transfer Application seeking quashing of the discharge order and appellate order, reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have filed a detailed reply contesting the Transfer Application and have raised preliminary objections to HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA /6689/2020 its maintainability. It is contended that no legal, statutory, or fundamental right of the applicant has been violated and that the application is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed.
b) The respondents admit the factum of appointment of the applicant as Constable in IRP-15th Battalion in May 2009 and her deputation for training. However, it is categorically denied that the applicant completed probation satisfactorily or that she remained in continuous service thereafter. It is specifically pleaded that the applicant absented herself unauthorisedly from duty with effect from 06.08.2012, which was duly recorded vide Battalion DDR No. 30 dated 06.08.2012.
c) It is emphatically denied that any application for maternity leave, sick leave, or any other kind of leave was ever submitted either by the applicant or by her husband. The respondents assert that no intimation regarding her delivery or illness was ever received by the Battalion Headquarters, nor was any medical record produced at the relevant time. Due to her HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA /6689/2020 prolonged unauthorised absence, the applicant was placed under suspension vide Order No. 440 of 2012 dated 28.08.2012.
d) The respondents further submit that several attendance notices were issued to the applicant directing her to resume duty. These notices were sent to her home address through registered post, through the concerned Police Station, and even through special messengers. When the applicant could not be traced, notices were served upon her parents in the presence of the village Sarpanch. Despite repeated opportunities, the applicant neither reported back to duty nor furnished any explanation.
e) As a last measure, attendance notices were published in leading newspapers, namely State Times dated 09.01.2013 and Amar Ujala dated 08.01.2013. Even thereafter, the applicant failed to resume duty. According to the respondents, her conduct amounted to grave misconduct unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force.
f) Consequently, after conducting a preliminary enquiry through the Unit Adjutant and after following due procedure, the applicant was discharged from service under Rule 187 of the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA /6689/2020 J&K Police Manual for being unlikely to prove an efficient police officer due to prolonged unauthorised absence of 291 days. It is asserted that the discharge was not punitive or stigmatic but was simpliciter in nature and passed strictly in accordance with rules.
g) With regard to the appeal filed by the applicant, the respondents submit that the same was hopelessly barred by limitation and was not supported by any documentary evidence as required under Rules 369(4) and 369(6) of the J&K Police Manual.
Therefore, the appeal was rightly rejected vide Order No. 26 of 2016 dated 07.12.2016.
h) The respondents deny all allegations of violation of Article 311, principles of natural justice, or non-holding of inquiry. It is reiterated that the applicant deliberately evaded service of notices, concealed her whereabouts, and failed to avail multiple opportunities granted to her. The respondents thus pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application as being devoid of merit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 9 :: TA /6689/2020
6. The present Transfer Application arises from SWP/WPC No. 335/2017 transferred to this Tribunal and registered as T.A. No. 6689/2020.
7. The applicant seeks quashing of (i) discharge Order No. 288/2013 dated 24.05.2013 and (ii) appellate Order No. 26 of 2016 dated 07.12.2016, along with reinstatement and consequential benefits.
8. The applicant pleads that she was appointed as Constable in IRP (15 th Battalion) on 21.05.2009, underwent training, and completed the probation period. She asserts that her prolonged absence was on account of childbirth and illness and that she was misled into believing that leave had been sanctioned. She contends that she was discharged without show cause and without a regular inquiry, that the order is stigmatic, and that her appeal was rejected without due hearing.
9. The respondents oppose the claim, pleading that the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent w.e.f. 06.08.2012, that no leave application or medical record was received, that multiple attendance notices were issued through various modes including publication, and that after preliminary enquiry and completion of formalities she was HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA /6689/2020 discharged under Rule 187 of the J&K Police Manual. The appeal was rejected being time barred and not supported by evidence as per applicable rules.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the following questions arise for consideration:
Whether the discharge order and the appellate order can be sustained in the facts pleaded and the process reflected in the record?
If not, what relief is just, equitable, and consistent with the requirements of a disciplined force and principles of natural justice?
Nature of dispute: absence, service of notices and fairness of process
11. The core controversy is not that the applicant was absent; the controversy is why she was absent, whether she was afforded a meaningful opportunity to explain, and whether the decision- making process fairly examined her explanation before severing service.
12. The applicant's case, in substance, is that the absence was attributable to maternity/medical complications and illness, and that she remained HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA /6689/2020 under a bona fide impression that her husband had moved and obtained leave. On the other hand, the respondents assert repeated notices, suspension, publication, and that the applicant deliberately avoided joining and was therefore discharged under Rule 187. Discharge in a disciplined force: rule power versus due process
13. It is not in dispute that the Police/IRP is a disciplined force and prolonged unauthorised absence is a serious misconduct. At the same time, service jurisprudence consistently requires that where an action effectively visits civil consequences and is founded on alleged misconduct/absence, the employer must demonstrate procedural fairness, i.e., that the employee was given a reasonable opportunity and that the authority applied its mind to the cause shown, particularly when the employee pleads justifying circumstances like maternity and illness.
14. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that the respondents rely on notices, including publication, and claim a preliminary enquiry through the Unit Adjutant.
15. However, what requires closer scrutiny is whether the process culminated in a reasoned determination of the applicant's HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA /6689/2020 explanation (maternity/illness and alleged lack of effective service), and whether the appellate authority's order meets the standard of a speaking order, especially since the earlier writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal by a speaking order. Appellate order: speaking order and proportional approach
16. The appellate order is defended primarily on limitation and want of evidence. While limitation is a relevant factor, it cannot be treated as an absolute bar in every case when (a) the original action results in termination/discharge from service, and (b) the employee pleads circumstances such as maternity and serious illness and asserts that she was not effectively served and came to know later.
17. In a matter involving termination/discharge, justice is better served by a fresh fact-finding exercise, rather than by shutting out examination on a technical ground alone--particularly when both sides have made assertions that are capable of verification:
Whether the applicant was indeed pregnant/under treatment during the relevant periods;
Whether she or her family/husband made any communication;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 13 :: TA /6689/2020
Whether the notices were effectively served and whether she was traceable;
Whether her absence was wilful, contumacious, or unavoidable;
and Whether the extreme consequence of discharge was warranted in the facts.
18. This Tribunal is conscious that reinstatement as a matter of course cannot be granted where the foundation is prolonged absence in a disciplined force. Equally, the Tribunal cannot ignore that severance of service must be preceded by a fair and meaningful opportunity and a reasoned decision.
19. In the considered view of this Tribunal, the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned orders only to the extent necessary to enable a lawful, fair and time-bound re-examination, by directing the competent authority to hold a fresh enquiry (fact- finding/departmental enquiry as warranted) into the applicant's unauthorised absence and the attendant circumstances, and by making reinstatement/joining contingent upon the outcome of such enquiry. This course balances:
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 :: TA /6689/2020 the discipline requirements of the force; and the applicant's plea of maternity/illness and alleged non-
effective opportunity.
20. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is disposed of with the following directions:
a) The discharge Order No. 288/2013 dated 24.05.2013 and the appellate Order No. 26 of 2016 dated 07.12.2016 are set aside, only for the limited purpose of enabling the respondents to undertake a fresh enquiry in accordance with law.
b) The respondents shall conduct a fresh enquiry into:
the period and cause of the applicant's absence; the applicant's plea of maternity/illness and supporting medical/hospital record;
the steps taken for service of notices and whether effective opportunity was in fact afforded; and whether the absence was wilful and whether discharge is warranted, keeping in view the standards applicable to a disciplined force.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 15 :: TA /6689/2020
c) The enquiry shall be completed within a period of six (06)
months from the date a copy of this order is served upon the competent authority.
d) The applicant shall appear before the competent authority within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and shall file all documents (medical papers, delivery record, treatment record, and any other material) relied upon by her, whereafter the respondents shall give her due opportunity of hearing, including opportunity to explain the circumstances of her absence.
e) Reinstatement/joining shall not be automatic. The applicant shall be permitted to join/reinstated only if, and only if, the fresh enquiry concludes in her favour and the competent authority records a reasoned finding that the absence was not wilful/contumacious and that she is otherwise fit to be retained/continued in service.
f) In case the enquiry results in an adverse conclusion, the competent authority shall pass a reasoned/speaking order, HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: TA /6689/2020 strictly in accordance with law, and the applicant shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate remedies.
g) Consequential benefits, if any, including the question of joining/pay/allowances/continuity, shall abide by the final outcome of the fresh enquiry and the final order passed thereon.
21. The Transfer Application stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV