Removal from service without formal departmental inquiry violates natural justice and is legally unsustainable.

The applicant was appointed as a Constable in the J&K Police in 1982 and promoted to Head Constable in 1997

In 1999, while serving in the IRP 4th Battalion, the applicant allegedly developed a "neurotic depressive illness," leading to prolonged medical treatment and intermittent absence from duty

The respondents contended that the applicant was a habitual absentee who failed to attend court proceedings in FIR No. 01/1999 and ignored multiple show-cause notices issued between 1999 and 2000

Although the applicant briefly resumed duties on several occasions following these notices, he repeatedly absented himself thereafter

Consequently, the respondents issued Order No. 357 of 2002 on 08.03.2002, removing him from service

The applicant challenged this removal, asserting that no formal departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity for a hearing was provided

The respondents admitted that a departmental enquiry was initiated but could not be completed because the applicant remained absent

The matter was originally filed as SWP No. 3174/2019 before the High Court of J&K and subsequently transferred to the Tribunal

1. Whether the removal of the applicant from service was legally sustainable despite the non-completion of a formal departmental enquiry as required under the J&K Police Rules and principles of natural justice

2. Whether the delay and laches in approaching the court disentitle the applicant from seeking discretionary relief

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the audi alteram partem rule, which necessitates a fair hearing and reasonable opportunity to defend against accusations before the imposition of a major penalty

It further relied on the J&K Police Rules, which mandate a formal disciplinary process—including the service of a statement of allegations and the recording of evidence—prior to terminating an official's service

The court also considered the doctrine of "delay and laches," noting that while delay is a factor in discretionary relief, it cannot override the foundational requirement of lawful procedure in cases of arbitrary removal

The Tribunal observed that while unauthorized absence in a disciplined force like the police is a grave matter, it does not dispense with the necessity of following a lawful procedure

The court reasoned that mere issuance of show-cause notices directing an employee to resume duty is not a substitute for a formal disciplinary enquiry where the delinquent official must be informed of charges and allowed to adduce evidence

The Tribunal highlighted the respondents' own admission that the departmental enquiry was never completed

Therefore, the removal order was found to be legally flawed as it was passed in the absence of a concluded enquiry conforming to statutory rules

Regarding the delay, the Tribunal held that technicalities should not prevent the examination of whether procedural safeguards were observed, especially when the applicant claimed medical incapacitation

However, the court determined that a straight reinstatement was improper given the disputed facts regarding the applicant's conduct and health, necessitating a fresh enquiry

It held that the removal was unsustainable due to the lack of a completed departmental enquiry

The respondents were granted liberty to initiate and conclude a fresh departmental enquiry strictly in accordance with the law within six months

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant’s entitlement to reinstatement, back wages, and other service benefits would be contingent upon and governed by the final outcome of the said enquiry

No order as to costs was made