JKLR-Part(I)                                                    SWP 580/2000                                      Back To Index

(2001) 1 J & K LAW REPORTER
High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
at Jammu
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Doabia, Judge

SWP 580 / 2000 decided on 3.10.2000.

J&K Police Manual Regulations 185,187- Petitioner recruited in the police service as constable - Petitioner concealed the fact that he had faced criminal trial for various offences under the Penal Code and about his subsequent conviction – Taking into consideration the above facts at the time of verfication of antecendents, petitioner discharged from service - Order impugned held to be passed within the four-corners of the Regulation 187 of the Police Manual Calls for no interference.

Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. D.C. Raina, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for respondents

Cases referred : Chronological
1. Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh AIR (1969) SC 966
2. Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70 LGR 27
3. Managing Director v. B. Karunakar and others (1993) 4 SCC 727

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Per T.S. Doabia, Judge
The petitioner applied for the post of a Constable. He was put to physical test. In the viva-voce he was also successful. On the basis of merit obtained by him he was selected as Constable. He was allotted No.115. He joined the service on 24-11-1999. After this he was sent for under-going nine months Police training at police Training Centre, Manigam, Srinagar. While the petitioner was under-going training he was served with a copy of order dated 17-04-2000. This is Annexure-A with this petition. In this communication it has been indicated that the petitioner did not inform that he was facing a trial under sections 147, 447, 324 & 323 RPC and was convicted also. A judgment convicting him for the commission of offences mentioned above and sentencing him for one year and three months was passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Billawar. The judgment is dated 23-10-1999. A departmental inquiry was also held. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the Superintendent of Police, Kathua was of the view that the act of the petitioner in concealing the afore-mentioned fact i.e. the fact that a criminal trial was pending against him and also that he stood convicted is good and sufficient reason to put an end to his probation service. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition.

One of the arguments which has been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment of conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st class has been reversed by the appellate Court and therefore, what prevailed with the Sr. Supdt. of Police while passing the order annexure-A no longer exist. It is accordingly submitted that the petitioner is entitled to relief that the order annexure-A be set aside. Copy of judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Kathua has been placed on the record by preferring a C.M.P.

The stand taken by the respondents is that the tenure of the petitioner was brought to an end in terms of regulation 185 and 187 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Manual. It is submitted that the fact a criminal trial was pending and the fact that this was not brought to the notice of authorities is a matter which is not in dispute. If this be the position then it is submitted that the petitioner cannot contend that something which was non-existent has been taken into consideration. As the respondent-State relied upon regularation 185 and 187 of the J&K Police Manual. These are being re-produced below:

"185. RECRUITS VERIFICATION OF CHARACTER of-

(1) The character and suitability for enrolment of every recuit shall be ascertained by a reference to the Lambardar of the village or ward officer of the Town of which the recruit is a resident. A second slip may also be sent to the Finger Print Bureau in order to establish his freedom or otherwise from conviction. Such Lambardar or ward officer shall if the recruit is of good character, furnish a certificate to that effect in Form 27 which shall be verified and attested by the Sub Inspector Incharge of the local Police Station.

Recruits shall provisionally enrolled pending result of the reference.

187. DISCHARGE OF INEFFICIENTS:-

A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superinendent at any time within three years of enrolment.

A reading of Regulation 185 makes it apparent that any recuit who is inducted in service can continue in service subject to verification of his antecedents. The requisite certificate has to be furnished by the concerned persons in the Form 27. As per Regulation 187, a constable if found un-likely to prove as an efficient police officer, can be discharged by the Superintendent of police at any time within three years of enrolment.

The only question which is required to be gone into is as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard before this order was passed.

It be seen that even Lord Denning whose contribution to the extension of the fair hearing is judicially recognized had some reservation in certain matters. In every breach of the rules the concept of complying with the principles of natural justice as per Lord Denning is not required to be complied with. One such decision is reported as Ward v. Bradford Corporation (1971) 70, L.G.R. 27. Again where the interest of the state is paramount even then the view expressed is that these are matters where judicial review is to be exercised to the minimum.

In this regard it would be apt to refer to what was said by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Managing Director v. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) (4) SCC 727.

The question involved in the afore-mentioned case was as to whether the non-supply of the inquiry report would ipso facto lead to the setting aside of the penal action taken against an employee. The Supreme court of India was of view that the theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.

When the above principles are taken note of then it can conveniently be said that the petitioner has not suffered on account of alleged non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. This is because it is an established fact that the petitioner was facing a criminal trial and this fact was not brought to the notice of the authorities. It is this concealment of fact, which has been taken note of by the appointing authority who proceeded under Regulation 187 of the Police Manual. No-doubt the concerned authority has also observed that his mis-conduct stands established through a judicial determination and no-doubt that judgment of conviction stands quashed nevertheless the fact that the petitioner concealed the facts that he was facing a trial is a matter which could be taken note of by the respondents.

When an order is passed on several grounds and if some of the grounds are found to have been established and when one of the ground is established, then that is good enough for sustaining the order. See Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh AIR 1969 SC 966.

I am accordingly of the view that the order annexure-A (order No.538 of 2000 dated 17-04-2000) has been passed within the four-coners of Regulation 187 of the J&K Police Manual and calls for no interference. This petition is found to be without any merit and is dismissed.