A police constable cannot be removed for unauthorized absence without a Rule 359-compliant inquiry.

The applicant, a Selection Grade Constable in the J&K Armed Police, was suspended in 2005 following registration of a criminal case against him.

After his acquittal in 2008, the High Court directed the respondents to consider his case and pass appropriate orders.

The respondents subsequently removed him from service for unauthorized absence, effective from 29 April 2008, and rejected his appeal in 2017.

The applicant challenged the removal and appellate orders, alleging that no proper departmental inquiry or fair opportunity had been provided.

The respondents maintained that an inquiry had been initiated, notices served, and the applicant had failed to participate or resume duty.

Whether the applicant’s removal for alleged unauthorized absence was valid when the prescribed departmental inquiry procedure under Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960, and the requirements of natural justice were allegedly not followed.

Whether removal from service could be made effective retrospectively from the date of the applicant’s absence.

Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rules, 1960, prescribes the procedure for departmental inquiries, including notice of the alleged misconduct, an opportunity to answer the charge and present a defence, and a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment; its protections are subject to the specified exceptions.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, requiring that a person be given notice and a fair opportunity to respond before an adverse order with civil consequences is made.

Relying on Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P., it noted that even in an ex parte inquiry the department must produce and establish evidence sufficient to support the charge and proposed penalty.

It also applied the judicial-review principles in SBI v. Ajay Kumar Srivastava: a court may intervene where an inquiry violates natural justice or statutory procedure, or where findings are unsupported by evidence.

The Tribunal further treated retrospective removal as legally objectionable.

The Tribunal found that the removal order was made for alleged unauthorized absence, but the record did not establish that the applicant had received the procedural protections required by Rule 359 and natural justice before the major penalty was imposed.

Although the respondents asserted that an inquiry and notices had been issued, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not stand given the breach of the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice.

It also regarded the order’s operation from the date of absence, rather than its date of issuance, as retrospective and legally unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the applicable rules, afford the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and preferably complete the process within four months.

The quashing did not entitle the applicant to salary for the period out of service; the respondents were to determine the treatment of the intervening period, based on the inquiry findings, for continuity of service and post-retirement benefits in accordance with the rules.