Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Jahangir Ahmed vs D/O Home Ut Of Jammu & Kashmir on 9 December, 2025
:: 1 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (RESERVED)
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No.61/6417/2021
Order reserved on: 14th day of October, 2025
Pronounced on: - This the 09.12.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Jahangir Ahmed, age 31 years,
S/O Shri Abdul Hamid,
R/O Village Chhamber,
Tehsil Mandi, District Poonch.
....Applicant
(Through Advocate: Mr. S.H. Rather)
VERSUS
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir
through Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Civil Secretariat Jammu.
2. Shri Prabhat Singh Jamwal,
Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda.
....Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Hunar Gupta, learned D.A.G.)
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 2 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 865/2010 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court with following prayer:
"i. Writ of certiorari quashing the Order No: 181/2010 dated 01st March, 2010 passed by the Respondent No:2 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the service.
ii. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. iii. Further Writ of Certiorari quashing the DPO Order No: 214 of 2000, dated 09th February, 2000 whereby Censure was awarded to the petitioner.
iv. dated 27th Further Writ of certiorari quashing the DPO Doda's Order No:1019/2009 November, 2009 whereby annual increment of the petitioner was stopped for a period of one year. v. Further Writ of Certiorari quashing the DPO'S order No: 1090/2009, dated 29.12.2009 whereby annual increment of the petitioner was stopped for a period of one year.
vi. Writ of certiorari quashing the DPO's Order No: 1091 of 2009, dated 29th December, 2009 whereby Censure was awarded. vi-a Writ of certiorari quashing the enquiry initiated vide DPO Doda Order No. 1138 of 2002 dated 11.12.2002, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and the departmental enquiry so initiated is still pending with CPO Doda. With a further writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the salary of the petitioner minus subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension including all other consequential benefits.
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 3 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021
vi-b Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accord the benefit of 6th Pay Commission in favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits vii. Any other additional or alternate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondents."
3. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings are as follows:
a) That the petitioner was appointed as constable in the J&K Police in the month of June, 1998 and after successfully undergoing training, he was posted in District Police Lines, Doda way back in April, 1999.
b) That in the year 2002, the petitioner came to be arrested in false and frivolous FIR being FIR NO:48/2002 allegedly for commission of offence under Section 202 RPC registered at Police Station, Doda. Since the petitioner was framed in the aforesaid FIR as he has not been involved in any criminal activity, as such the Learned Sessions Judge, Doda vide his judgement, dated 24.03.2009 dismissed the Challan and consequently acquitted the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
c) That the aforesaid case of murder by virtue of which the petitioner was placed under suspension and also a departmental enquiry was initiated has since been HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 4 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 culminated into acquittal after a criminal trial before the Court of Learned Session Judge, Doda. It is respectfully submitted that since the charges on the basis of which the petitioner was placed under suspension has already been dismissed and the petitioner has already been acquitted whereafter the respondent has rightly reinstated the petitioner into service and the departmental enquiry so initiated is deemed to have been closed in favour of the petitioner.
d) That during the service tenure of the petitioner the 6th pay commission recommendations were implemented by the Govt. and its benefits was accorded to all the Govt.
Servants. Petitioner is also entitled to be accorded the benefit of 6th Pay Commission, however, respondents for the reasons best known to them have denied the benefit of 6th Pay Commission, which is violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner granted to him under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
e) That after the judgement of the Learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner was reinstated into service.
f) Thereafter the Respondent No: 2 namely Shri Prabhat Singh, called the petitioner in his office chamber and directed him to go to Samba to eliminate some persons which he called (Captain). The petitioner shocked to hear HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 5 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 the aforesaid illegal and criminal order from the Respondent No: 2 and declined to act upon such an order since petitioner is a law abiding and innocent citizen, as such he could not think even in his dreams to commit such a heinous crime. However, the refusal of the petitioner could not be taken in good taste/ digested by the Respondent No:2 who started finding faults with the petitioner on one pretext or the other. At the time, when the petitioner refused to accept the criminal direction of the Respondent No:2, the Respondent No:2 got annoyed with the petitioner and threatened the petitioner that he will have to face the dire consequences. The Respondent No: 2 further threatened that "I WILLNOT LET YOU FREE AND ONLY COURT HAS ACQUITTED YOU NOT ME". The petitioner was further threatened by the Respondent No: 2 that "I WILL FRAME YOU IN MORE SIMILAR CASES".
g) That to fulfill his nefarious threats, the Respondent No: 2 initiated inquiry after inquiry against the petitioner without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner in a span of six months after his reinstatement, was served three different charge sheets which he effectively replied as the petitioner decided not to bow down before the nefarious designs of the Respondent No: 2, who wanted to commit some heinous offences, through the petitioner. However, the so-called inquiries initiated HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 6 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 against the petitioner were not in consonance with the statutory provisions and the same were in complete violation of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and Police Rules governing the field.
h) That in so far as the inquiry which has resulted in passing of the order impugned, dated 01.03.2010 is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that on 25.01.2010 the petitioner was deputed on duty at Akramabad alongwith as many as 08 more constables. The petitioner remained there for whole day and came back in District Police Line at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening and reported his arrival to the concerned BHM. It is pertinent to mention here that in the roll call of 25.01.2010, 02 days duty were announced, in as much as, these duties were assigned for the purpose of Republic Day celebrations which were to be held on 26.01.2010, as such, the petitioner was given a point known as Akramabad and was asked to remain there for 25th January, 2010 from morning to evening and also on 26th January, 2010 from morning to evening.
i) That on 25th January, 2010 as has been mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner reported back to BHM at Police Line, Doda and requested him that since he was not feeling well, as such he may be allowed to take rest in the night so that he would be able to resume his duty at 5.00 a.m. on 26th January, 2010 at a given point. BHM, namely Shri HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 7 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 Mohd. Aslam, Head Constable acceded to the request of the petitioner and allowed him to take rest and even the weapon issued to the petitioner on 25.01.2010 in the morning was taken by the aforesaid BHM who told the petitioner that he can get the weapon in the morning on 26th January, 2010 for his further performance of duties at given point.
j) That thereafter the petitioner went to his residence and on the next day when he returned and reported to BHM, who told the petitioner that he has been placed under suspension. The petitioner was shocked to hear the aforesaid news of suspension from BHM and requested the aforesaid BHM that he was on duty on 25.01.2010 for whole day and had taken the permission from him for rest only for 3-4 hours. But the BHM told the petitioner that he cannot explain the reasons as the order of suspension has come from the higher officers. Thereafter the petitioner remained present in the DPL (District Police Lines).
k) A totally false and frivolous story has been cooked up just to harass and mentally torture the petitioner. No proper inquiry as envisaged under the Police Rules was conducted nor the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities of being heard. All the rules governing the Departmental Inquiry were observed in breach. The Inquiry Officer has recommended that the annual increment of the petitioner HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 8 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 be stopped for 02 years and he be reinstated. However, the Respondent No:2 not agreeing with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, without issuing any notice with respect to the proposed penalty has passed the order impugned bearing No:181 of 2010, dated 01.03.2010 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed. Even final order of dismissal by the Respondent No: 2 has not been served upon the petitioner and the petitioner with his great efforts got the certified copy of the same.
l) That after going through the aforesaid order, dated 01.03.2010, the petitioner for the first time came to know that some illegal and arbitrary orders have already been passed against the petitioner vide Order being DPO Order No: 214 of 2000, dated 09th February, 2000, DPO Doda's Order No:1019/2009 dated 27th November, 2009, DPO'S order No: 1090/2009, dated 29.12.2009, DPO's Order No:
1091 of 2009, dated 29th December, 2009 and the same are also assailed in the instant writ petition.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement, inter-alia stated that That the petitioner has got no ground to assail the impugned Orders as the same have been passed after scrupulously following the procedure pertaining to the conducting of departmental enquiries and in consonance with the law/rules occupying the field. It is due to his repeated acts of indiscipline, insubordination, lack of sincerity in the HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 9 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 performance of his assigned duties coupled with his misbehavior with his fellow Police personnel as well as Senior Police Officers and in view of his having great propensity to indulge in such highly objectionable and uncalled for acts, amounting to grave service misconducts, which ultimately cost him his service vide one of the impugned orders i.e..
DPO Doda's Order No. 181 of 2010 date 01-03-2010. In all the departmental actions, initiated against the petitioner, he was fully associated during the course of the enquiry proceedings and was given ample opportunity to prove his innocence. But in none of the enquiries, the petitioner could prove his innocence and resultantly, he came to be awarded five major punishments during his twelve years of service in the Police Department before passing the final major punishment vide the impugned Order No. 181 of 2010 date 01-03-2010. whereby and whereunder the petitioner was dismissed from service as none of the earlier punishments, awarded to him for different misconducts, could serve as corrective to him. Neither he learned any lesson from these punishments nor was there possibility that the petitioner would reform himself. Since retention of the petitioner on rolls of Police Organization was bound to adversely affect the discipline of the other members of the Police force as well and bring bad name to the department, so there was no option left but to terminate his services. Thus, the impugned orders are sustainable in the eyes of law for their having being passed strictly as per the law/ rules governing the field.
Further submitted that it has been wrongly averred by the petitioner that he has no knowledge of the impugned orders. The fact of HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 10 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 the matter is that the petitioner has participated in all the departmental actions initiated against him for the aforementioned grave service misconducts for which he was awarded six major punishments, as enumerated supra. Thus, the writ petitioner, being groundless, crumbles under its own weight and as such is liable to be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The grounds taken by the applicant raised in the petition are that:
a) That orders impugned in the writ petition are unconstitutional, and illegal, as the same have been passed in contravention to the Rule 359 of the Police Manual read with Section 126 of the constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir. No person can be dismissed or removed from the services except after inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges levelled against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. However, where it is proposed any such inquiry to impose any such major penalty, then show cause notice in respect of the proposed penalty is also required to be given. In the present case, the order of dismissal is punitive as it caused stigma upon the petitioner. The petitioner has been punished on the basis of no evidence and all the procedure of holding the departmental enquiry against a public servant have been HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 11 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 observed in breach. Even the previous punishments which have been made the basis of order of dismissal have not been part of charge sheet served upon the petitioner, as such the petitioner was prejudiced in making effective reply to the charge sheet. Even the show cause notice has not been served upon the petitioner before imposing the major penalty upon the petitioner.
b) That the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he was advised to collect the lathi instead of rifle was absurd on the face of it. It is respectfully submitted that District Doda is still infested with the militants activities and even on a major national event, there was always apprehension of militants strikes, as such performing the duties on major national events without weapon amounts of committing suicide and there was not even whisper in the statement of the concerned KOT who has issued the rifle on 25.01.2010 to the petitioner that there was any order with respect to the issuance of Lathi instead of rifle to the petitioner. Since the Respondent No: 2 with malafide intention was always after the petitioner and was in a habit of finding fault on one pretext or the other, as such the order impugned is malafide and cannot sustain in the eyes of law as such requires to be quashed.
c) That no summary of allegations as envisaged in the Police Rules was served upon before framing the charge sheet and HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 12 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 thereafter the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of defending his case. The petitioner was condemned unheard and order impugned was passed without there being any evidence in support of it. Even the minimum requirement of principle of natural justice has not been observed. The order impugned is illegal and in violation of constitutional provisions and is liable to be set aside.
d) That perusal of the order impugned reveals that the absent from 25.01.2010 to 12.02.2010 was entered against the petitioner. However, the petitioner remained with the respondent. In this respect, when the petitioner came to know that the absent has been marked in the Roznamcha, the petitioner moved an application
e) for getting the order of presence, in this regard, report of MHC, DPL Doda dated 27.01.2010 is also annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE 'E' for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. Perusal of the report fortified the contention of the petitioner that he remained present but the respondent with malafide intention, intentionally and deliberately marked the absence of the petitioner.
f) That various punishments recorded against the petitioner which have been mentioned in the order impugned, dated 01.03.2010 are also against the rules and are illegal and are the outcome of the frustration of the Respondent No: 2 on whose illegal, direction for eliminating a Captain of his HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 13 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 residence (at Samba) the petitioner has flatly refused to act upon and this frustration of the Respondent No: 2 lead to the passing of the order impugned against the petitioner.
Had the petitioner agreed to the illegal command of the Respondent No:2, he would have honoured suitable reward, promotion.
g) The petitioner has been condemned unheard without there being any fault on his part. Respondent No:2 in order to teach a lesson to the petitioner for the non-compliance of his illegal and criminal command inflicted major punishment without even serving the mandatory show cause notice upon the petitioner, the orders impugned as such cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside.
h) That since the petitioner was acquitted of the charges on the basis of which he was placed under suspension, as such, he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including his salary which was due to the petitioner during the period of his suspension. The Departmental Enquiry is deemed to have been closed in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are directed to release all the service benefits including his due salary during the period of suspension.
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV
:: 14 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021
i) That petitioner was fully eligible and entitled to be accorded the benefit of 6th Pay Commission recommendations and the denial of the same amounts to the violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot be allowed to discriminate the petitioner and to deny him the service benefits which were accrued to him alongwith other State Govt. employees. The petitioner is entitled to all the service benefits including monetary at-least during his service tenure till the order of his termination which is impugned herein, the respondents are as such liable to be directed to accord all the service benefits in conformity with the 6th Pay Service Commission. The respondents are also liable to be directed to release the salary of the petitioner due to him during the period of his suspension
7. In Union of India & Others vs. Subrata Nath reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1617, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the broad parameter within which the Hon'ble High Court or Tribunal can exercise their powers:-
"19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus :
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 15 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
8. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11871 of 2014 [The State of Punjab & Others vs. Jaswant Singh] judgment dated 05.09.2023 has held that once there is stigma, the principle is well settled, an opportunity has to be given before passing any order.
In view of the aforecited law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the facts of the case are being analysed.
9. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 01.03.2010, it is evident that this order was passed on the basis of an incident occurred on 25.01.2010 and an inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 16 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 recommended that annual increment of the official may kindly be stopped for a period of two years. Moreover, his absentee period w.e.f. 25.01.2010 to 12.02.2010 total 19 days may kindly be treated as on leave whatever kind is due to him and suspension period w.e.f. 12.02.2010 to till date, during which he had remained present may kindly be treated as on duty. Further it is recommended that he may kindly be re-instated into services if deemed applicable but respondent no. 2. i.e. Disciplinary Authority has been allowed themselves to be influenced by extraneous considerations by recording past record of the punishment of the petitioner. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted herein below for ready reference:
"I have gone through the enquiry papers and finding of E/O minutely, not agreeing with the recommendation of E/O as the punishment recommended does not commensurate with the guilt of the delinquent official, because during his short span of service he is not the performing satisfactorily and living in the department by his own choice and has been awarded 05 major punishments for different mis-conducts, the gist thereof enumerated as under:-
1. Vide DPO Doda order No. 214 of 2000 dated 09.02.2000, censure awarded to him for his absence from duty.
2. Vide DPO Doda order No. 1138 of 2002 dated 11.12.2002, placed under suspension for his arrest/involvement in a murder case FIR No. 49/2002 U/S 302 RPC P/S Doda and for this mis-conduct a DE is still pending with CPO Doda.
3. Vide DPO Doda order No. 402 of 2009 dated 18.05.2009, placed under suspension for reporting late at DPL Doda from Srinagar where he was deputed among others for Election duty 2009. Later on vide DPO Doda order No. 1018 of 2009 dated 27.11.2009, DE finalise and his annual increment stopped for a period of one year.
4. Vide DPO Doda order No. 1090 of 2009 dated 29.12.2009, annual increment stopped for a period of one year, for indulging in criminal activities and earning bad name to the Police force for brooking a mirror of Barber shop at Dessa chowk-Doda in drunken/antoxication condition.
5. Vide DPO order No. 1091 of 2009 dated 29.12.2009, censure awarded for indiscipline act when he was deputed with the escort of under trials and there by threatening/abusing with other escort official.
HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 17 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 Since in the instant departmental enquiry, E/O has fully established the charges of criminal mind/intention on part of above said delinquent official, besides is repeatedly indulging in criminal activates and under these circumstances his retention in the department can lad to a major tragedy and send a wrong message among the other subordinates, therefore I Prabhat Singh, Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda in excercise of the power vested in me hereby order the DISMISSAL of Ct. Jhangir Ahmed No. 1177/D PID No. 987001 from service with immediate effect.
He will deposit all Govt. Uniform articles/A/A in DPL store/Kot respectively and clear NDC from all Qtrs concerned. His Belt No. 1177/D is treated as vacant. Moreover, findings of the E/O is in detail and shall form a part of this order. The period of suspension / absentee is decided as under :-
"w.e.f 25.01.2010 to 12.02.2010 AN i.e. 19 days is treated as DIESNON on principle of no work no pay and w.e.f 12.02.2010 FN to 28.02.2010 AN is treated as on duty which he remained present."
10. As per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Subrata Nath (supra), impugned dismissal order dated 01.03.2010 cannot be sustained.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that impugned dismissal order has been passed without applying of procedure provided in rules is hit by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Subrata Nath (supra) and State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Jaswant Singh(supra).
12. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that show cause notice for enhancement of penalty has not been served to the applicant, opportunity of hearing has also not been provided to him and the respondents have considered the extraneous materials, hence, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India & Others vs. Subrata Nath (supra), and State of Punjab and HARSHIT HARSHIT YADAV YADAV :: 18 :: T.A. No. 61/6417/2021 Ors. vs. Jaswant Singh (Supra) the, impugned order dated 01.03.2010 is arbitrary and illegal and deserve to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.03.2010 from which the petitioner has been dismissed from service is quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct fresh inquiry in the matter as per rules within a period of six months from the date copy of this order made available to the respondents and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The joining of the petitioner would be subject to final outcome of the enquiry report.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Member (A) Member (J)
/JNS/
HARSHIT HARSHIT
YADAV YADAV