Mandamus to Decide Pending Service Appeals and Review Petitions Within a Prescribed Timeframe

The applicant, Mohd Saleem Khan, was serving as a Constable (No. 703/IR-23rd) in the Jammu & Kashmir Police

He was removed from service on January 25, 2025, vide Order No. 15 of 2025 passed by the Commandant IR 23rd Bn. (Respondent No. 4)

The applicant challenged this removal, asserting it was arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Police Rules

Procedurally, the applicant initially filed an appeal; however, Respondent No. 3 (DIG, IR Range) advised him via communication dated June 4, 2025, to file a review petition before Respondent No. 4 instead

Despite filing the review petition, the respondents failed to decide on it after a considerable period, leading the applicant to approach the Tribunal for reinstatement and consequential benefits

1. Whether the respondents’ failure to decide upon the applicant’s appeal/review petition necessitates a time-bound direction for administrative adjudication.

The Court applied the principles of administrative justice and the statutory obligations of the Respondent department under the applicable Police Rules governing removals and appeals

It emphasized the requirement for administrative authorities to pass reasoned and speaking orders when deciding representations or statutory reviews, while adhering to the principles of Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard) to ensure the decision-making process is not arbitrary or unjust

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the removal order, noting the applicant’s limited prayer to have the Original Application (OA) treated as a representation

The court noted that while the applicant had followed the internal department advice to file a review petition after his appeal was returned, the department had maintained silence for an unreasonable duration

By directing the respondents to treat the OA as a representation, the Tribunal sought to exhaust the available administrative remedies before judicial intervention. The court reasoned that providing the applicant with an opportunity for a personal hearing and requiring a "comprehensive, reasoned, and speaking order" ensures procedural fairness and addresses the applicant’s grievance regarding non-consideration of his case

It directed the respondents to treat the OA as a representation and decide the applicant's appeal/review petition against Removal Order No. 15 of 2025 in accordance with the law and applicable rules. The respondents are ordered to afford the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a detailed, speaking order within six weeks from the receipt of the certified order