The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by a former police constable challenging his removal from service for unauthorized absence, holding that a member of the police force cannot be expected to run away from his duties due to threats to his life. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal found the constable’s conduct “unbecoming of a member of Police force” and upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had rejected his plea for reinstatement.
Case Background
The petitioner, Mehraj-ud-Din Khan, joined the J&K Police as a Constable in 1987. In 1990, after three years of service, he went on a 30-day earned leave from June 15, 1990, which was later extended by another 30 days. He was due to report back for duty on August 15, 1990, but failed to do so. Consequently, he was removed from service with effect from August 15, 1990, by an order dated May 6, 1991.
After nearly nineteen years, in 2009, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking to rejoin service. This representation was rejected by the Director General of Police on September 25, 2009, on the grounds that it was submitted beyond the period of limitation.
Aggrieved, Mr. Khan filed his first writ petition (SWP No.499/2010). On October 21, 2016, the High Court quashed the rejection order and directed the respondents to consider his representation afresh on its merits, after affording him an opportunity of being heard. Following this direction, his representation was again rejected on November 23, 2017. This second rejection was challenged in another writ petition (SWP No.1148/2018), which was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Srinagar Bench. The CAT dismissed his application on March 6, 2025, leading to the present petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Huzaif Ashraf Khanpori, contended that he was unable to resume his duties due to the “prevalent and alarming security situation caused by widespread militancy and threats to the life during the relevant period.” He claimed to have made numerous representations that evoked no response. He further argued that the dismissal order was passed in violation of Rule 359 of the J&K Police Manual.
The respondents—the Union Territory of J&K and senior police officials—countered that the petitioner had a poor service record, having earned three major punishments and 31 days of absence being treated as DIES NON. His character roll contained remarks of “below average and habitual of absenteeism.” They stated that multiple signals were sent to him through the concerned police station in 1990 and 1991 instructing him to resume his duties, but he “turned deaf ears.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, noted that in compliance with the court’s earlier directions, the petitioner was given a personal hearing on March 25, 2017. During this hearing, the petitioner stated that he absented himself due to threats from militants but “could not adduce any evidence/material in support of his plea/claim.”
The bench made a critical observation regarding the duty of a police official, stating, “A police official, who does not join duty just because threat from the militants, cannot be expected to protect the life and property of the citizens of the country.”
The Court highlighted the petitioner’s prolonged and unexplained absence, noting, “The petitioner, after remaining absent for nineteen years, for the first time filed representation only in the year 2009.” It also pointed out that in his application before the CAT, the petitioner had admitted his misconduct but complained of “excessive punishment,” raising this issue nearly two decades after “abandoning the service, when at the peak of militancy, the manpower was very much required for protection of life and property of citizens.”
The judgment affirmed the findings of the CAT, stating that the tribunal had correctly concluded from the records that the petitioner received multiple signals to rejoin his duties but failed to do so. The High Court found no procedural lapse, confirming that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing as directed, but could not make out a case for his reinstatement.
Final Decision
Concluding that the petitioner’s conduct was “unbecoming of a member of Police force,” the High Court found no reason to interfere with the CAT’s order. The bench dismissed the writ petition, finding it “bereft of any merit.”
