Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Kamal Singh vs Jammu & Kashmir Police on 9 February, 2026
:: 1 :: TA 9331/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 9331/2020
Reserved on: - 10.10.2025
Pronounced on: - 09.02.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Kamal Singh, Aged 44 years Son of Late Shri Rashpal Singh, R/o
Village Sarora Tehsil Marh, District Jammu.
...Applicant
(Advocate: - Mr. Parimoksh Seth)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir, Through Principal Secretary Home
Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu.
2.. Director General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir State, Police
Headquarters, Jammu.
3. Additional Director General of Police Armed, J&K, Jammu.
....Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG)
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: TA 9331/2020
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP No.579/2019 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.9331/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
In view of the submissions made herein above and those to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to allow the present petition by granting the following reliefs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with costs in the interest of justice:
(a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing show cause notice issued by respondent no.3 under endorsement notice no. APHQ/CS/Clt14/2015/134 dated 02.02.2019 being totally illegal and without jurisdiction.
(b) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not take any further disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of allegations contained in the impugned show cause notice. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case deems fit and proper.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows: -
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 3 :: TA 9331/2020
a) The present Transfer Application bearing No. 9331/2020 arises out of SWP No. 579/2019, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to this Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
The applicant seeks quashing of a show cause notice dated 02.02.2019 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Armed), Jammu & Kashmir, proposing enhancement of punishment to removal/dismissal from service.
b) The applicant, Kamal Singh, was appointed as a Constable in the Jammu & Kashmir Police vide Order No. 357 of 1997 dated 07.11.1997 issued by the Commandant, IRP 4th Battalion. Over the years, he earned promotion and at the relevant point of time was holding the post of Selection Grade Constable.
c) In the year 2014, an alleged complaint dated 27.03.2014 was received by the Vigilance authorities, purportedly submitted by one Sham Singh, alleging that the applicant had managed to secure appointment in the Police Department in the year 1997 despite his alleged involvement in three criminal cases, namely FIR Nos. 214/1996, 224/1996, and 112/1997 of Police Station Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 4 :: TA 9331/2020 Domana. It was alleged that the applicant had concealed material facts and influenced the CID verification process at the time of his recruitment.
d) The applicant asserts that he stood acquitted in all the aforesaid FIRs and that none of the criminal cases resulted in conviction. It is further pleaded that the said Sham Singh subsequently filed a written application dated 01.05.2015 along with a sworn affidavit denying having ever lodged any complaint against the applicant, thereby branding the complaint as false, motivated, and fabricated.
e) The applicant further relies upon Circular No. 29-GAD(Vig) of 2014 dated 31.07.2014 issued by the General Administration Department, which prescribes that anonymous and pseudonymous complaints are not to be acted upon and are liable to be filed without inquiry unless the complainant owns the complaint after verification.
f) Notwithstanding the above, the matter was referred to Commandant, IRP 6th Battalion for verification, followed by a departmental inquiry conducted by Commandant, IRP 4 th Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 5 :: TA 9331/2020 Battalion. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, a final order No. 52 of 2017 dated 28.01.2017 was passed, whereby the applicant was awarded a minor penalty of forfeiture of annual increments for a period of two years.
g) The applicant specifically pleads that the said punishment order was never served upon him, thereby depriving him of the statutory right of appeal, and that the penalty accordingly attained finality. Subsequently, the matter was placed before the Inspector General of Police, Armed/IR Jammu, who vide Order No. 180 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018 upheld the punishment awarded.
h) Despite the finality of the disciplinary proceedings, the Additional Director General of Police (Armed) issued the impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2019 under Rule 363 of the J&K Police Rules, proposing enhancement of punishment to dismissal/removal from service on the very same allegations which had already culminated in a final order of punishment.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 6 :: TA 9331/2020
i) Aggrieved by the said show cause notice, the applicant approached the High Court, contending that the initiation of a second review/enhancement proceeding after exhaustion of powers under Rule 363 is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, besides offending settled principles against double jeopardy in disciplinary jurisprudence
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents, while opposing the Transfer Application, raised preliminary objections asserting that no legal, statutory, or constitutional right of the applicant has been violated and that the writ petition is devoid of cause of action.
b) On merits, it is contended that a written complaint dated 27.03.2014, accompanied by documentary material, was received through the Vigilance Organization alleging serious misconduct on the part of the applicant. The respondents maintain that the complaint was neither anonymous nor Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: TA 9331/2020 pseudonymous and disclosed grave allegations warranting verification and disciplinary action.
c) It is pleaded that verification conducted through Commandant, IRP 6th Battalion revealed that three criminal cases were pending against the applicant at the time of his recruitment in 1997 and that he had suppressed material information and managed a favourable CID verification. Based on the inquiry report, departmental proceedings were initiated by Commandant, IRP 4th Battalion, culminating in Order No. 52 of 2017 dated 28.01.2017 imposing punishment of forfeiture of two annual increments.
d) The respondents candidly admit that the punishment so awarded was upheld by the Inspector General of Police, Armed/IR Jammu vide Order No. 180 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018. However, they assert that the punishment was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct involving suppression of criminal antecedents and deceitful entry into the Police force.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: TA 9331/2020
e) It is further pleaded that under Rule 363 of the J&K Police Rules, superior officers including the Additional Director General of Police are empowered to call for records and review, enhance, modify, or annul punishments awarded by subordinate authorities. According to the respondents, restructuring of the police hierarchy has vested such powers in senior officers, including the ADGP (Armed), who is competent to issue the impugned show cause notice.
f) The respondents deny that issuance of the show cause notice amounts to double jeopardy or lack of jurisdiction and maintain that the notice merely affords an opportunity of hearing before enhancement of punishment, as mandated by Rule 363(2) of the Police Rules. The affidavit allegedly filed by the complainant retracting the complaint is termed inconsequential and legally irrelevant in view of the findings recorded during departmental inquiry.
g) On these premises, the respondents pray for dismissal of the Transfer Application, asserting that the impugned show cause Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: TA 9331/2020 notice is lawful, justified, and issued in accordance with statutory powers
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The present Transfer Application has its genesis in SWP No. 579/2019, which stood transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir to this Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 9331/2020. The applicant has questioned the legality and jurisdiction of the show cause notice dated 02.02.2019 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Armed), whereby enhancement of punishment to the extent of removal/dismissal from service was proposed, despite the fact that disciplinary proceedings on the very same allegations had already culminated in a final order and stood affirmed by the competent superior authority.
7. The material facts are largely undisputed. The applicant was appointed as Constable in the year 1997 and subsequently earned promotion to the rank of Selection Grade Constable. On the basis of a complaint received in the year 2014 alleging that the applicant had suppressed his involvement in certain FIRs at the time of his Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: TA 9331/2020 appointment, a departmental enquiry was ordered. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with rules and culminated in Final Order No. 52 of 2017 dated 28.01.2017, whereby the applicant was awarded the punishment of forfeiture of annual increments for a period of two years. The respondents themselves admit that the said order was thereafter placed before the Inspector General of Police, Armed/IR Jammu, who vide Order No. 180 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018 upheld the punishment so imposed. Thus, the disciplinary proceedings reached their logical and legal conclusion and attained finality.
8. What assumes significance is that after the conclusion of the enquiry and affirmation of punishment by the competent reviewing authority, no new FIR, no subsequent criminal case, and no fresh act of misconduct has been alleged or brought on record against the applicant. Notwithstanding the above, the impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2019 came to be issued proposing enhancement of punishment to removal/dismissal on the very same allegations which had already been examined, adjudicated upon, and concluded. Such a course of action, in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, is wholly impermissible in law.
Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: TA 9331/2020
9. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that once a disciplinary enquiry culminates in a final order and the same is either accepted or upheld by the competent authority, the matter cannot be reopened repeatedly merely because the employer subsequently forms an opinion that the punishment imposed was inadequate. The power of review or enhancement is not an unending or perpetual power. Rule 363 of the J&K Police Rules does confer a power of review upon superior officers, but such power stands exhausted once it is exercised in accordance with law. In the present case, the said power was admittedly exercised by the Inspector General of Police, Armed/IR Jammu, who upheld the punishment awarded to the applicant. After such exercise of jurisdiction, there remained no authority in law to again reopen the matter on identical facts and allegations.
10. Permitting repeated reviews or successive enhancement proceedings on the same set of facts would render the concept of finality meaningless and would expose a government servant to perpetual uncertainty and harassment. For the same offence and on the same allegations, in absence of any fresh material or subsequent Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 12 :: TA 9331/2020 misconduct, a second enquiry or enhancement proceeding is clearly barred. Such action also partakes the character of a colourable exercise of power and offends the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness which are implicit in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
11. Equally important is the admitted position that there is no fresh FIR or criminal case registered against the applicant after the culmination of disciplinary proceedings. The allegations sought to be relied upon in the impugned show cause notice are the very same allegations which were subject matter of the earlier enquiry. In absence of any new material, the respondents cannot be permitted to revisit a concluded issue merely to impose a harsher punishment. Administrative discretion cannot be stretched to such an extent as to defeat the protection available to an employee under service law.
12. Viewed from any angle, the impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2019 cannot be sustained. It has been issued without jurisdiction, in excess of the powers conferred under the rules, and in clear disregard of the finality already attached to the disciplinary proceedings. The action of the respondents in seeking to enhance the Digitally signed by HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: TA 9331/2020 punishment on the same allegations, after exhaustion of the review mechanism, is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
13. Accordingly, the Transfer Application is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 02.02.2019 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (Armed), J&K, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are restrained from initiating or continuing any further disciplinary or enhancement proceedings against the applicant on the same allegations and same set of facts. The punishment imposed vide Order No. 52 of 2017 dated 28.01.2017, as upheld by Order No. 180 of 2018 dated 19.12.2018, shall be treated as final and conclusive. Consequential service benefits, if any withheld solely on account of the impugned show cause notice, shall be released in accordance with rules. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
Digitally signed by
HARSHIT YADAVHARSHIT YADAV