Punishment based on criminal allegations is unsustainable where the underlying FIR is closed as untraced.

The eleven petitioners, Selection Grade Constables in the J&K Executive Police, were suspended following an incident on April 7, 2016, where a violent mob hijacked and burnt a police bunker in Pulwama

A departmental enquiry was initiated, and FIR No. 123/2016 was registered regarding the failure of the petitioners to resist the mob

Although the petitioners were reinstated due to manpower shortages, the disciplinary authority issued Order No. 46 of 2017 (dated Feb 1, 2017), forfeiting one year of annual increments and ordering the recovery of public property losses from their salaries

Crucially, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, closed the criminal case as "untraced" on February 19, 2026, as no incriminating material or identified offenders surfaced

The petitioners approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the punishment and regularize their suspension period

1. Whether the impugned punishment of forfeiture of increments and recovery of losses is sustainable given that the underlying criminal allegations were not proved

2. Whether the disciplinary action and the departmental enquiry adhered to the principles of natural justice and prescribed rules

The court relied on the principle that maintenance of discipline is fundamental to a "belt force," but disciplinary actions must adhere to procedural fairness

an order is liable to be quashed if the delinquent official is denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or if the enquiry report and material documents are not furnished to the petitioner

if criminal allegations fundamental to the disciplinary charge are not proved in a court of law, the resulting administrative punishment may be deemed excessive or unwarranted

The Tribunal observed that the core allegations—failure to show resistance against the mob—formed the basis of both the FIR and the departmental punishment. Since the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, concluded that no specific person surfaced as an accused and no incriminating material existed, the petitioners cannot be held liable for a criminal act

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents' decision to reinstate the petitioners due to "shortage of manpower" despite the pending FIR effectively suggested an exoneration

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the punishment granted appeared disproportionate in light of the criminal court's "untraced" report, necessitating a re-evaluation of the disciplinary orders

The respondents are ordered to pass fresh, appropriate orders in accordance with the law within eight weeks, specifically considering that the criminal allegations were not proved. The petitioners were directed to place the relevant criminal court order before the competent authority for this review