Member Of Police Force Not Expected To Run Away From Duties Due To Threat To Life: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Upholds Constable’s Dismissal
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court was considering a petition filed by a former Constable challenging the order rejecting his representation.
Chief Justice Arun Palli, Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High Court
While upholding the dismissal of a former constable who filed his representation 19 years after the order was passed against him, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a member of the Police force is not expected to run away from his duties merely because of threat to his life.
The High Court was considering a petition filed by a former Constable challenging the order rejecting his representation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held, “Further, the Tribunal has returned a finding that the petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing in terms of the directions issued by the Writ Court but he could not make out any case resulting into rejection of his claim by the competent authority. Otherwise, also a member of the Police force is not expected to run away from his duties just due to threat to his life. The conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of a member of Police force.”
Advocate Huzaif Ashraf Khanpori represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner Constable, having a service period of only three years at his back, proceeded on 30 days earned leave from June 15, 1990, which was extended by another 30 days but he failed to join and he was removed from service with effect from August 15, 1990. The petitioner claimed that owing to the prevalent and alarming security situation caused by widespread militancy and threats to life during the relevant period, he was unable to resume his duties within the stipulated period but after a lapse of sometime, he presented himself before the Battalion for the purpose of joining his duties, however, he was not permitted to mark his attendance.
Aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation/appeal. This representation was rejected and the same was assailed by the petitioner. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the same, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that the Tribunal had not taken note of non-compliance of Rule 359 of the J&K Police Manual.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the petitioner, after remaining absent for nineteen years, for the first time filed representation only in the year 2009. The petitioner had not placed on record any evidence/document to show that in the interregnum, he approached the respondents for joining back his duty, though only a bald submission was made by him. “Strangely, enough he has raised the issue of excessive punishment after 19 years of abandoning the service, when at the peak of militancy, the manpower was very much required for protection of life and property of citizens, in the Police Department”, it noted.
It was further noticed by the Bench that the defence of the petitioner was only that due to militant threats, he absented from duties, but the same did not weigh with the Director General of Police, and, as such, his representation was rejected. The Bench took note of the fact that the Tribunal had returned a finding that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing in terms of the directions issued by the Writ Court, but he could not make out any case resulting in the rejection of his claim by the competent authority.
Highlighting that the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a member of the Police force, the Bench dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Mehraj-ud-Din Khan v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (Case No.: WP(C) No.2065/2025)