Respondents directed to decide comprehensive representation against service punishment through a reasoned, speaking order.

The applicant, a Constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, was implicated in FIR No. 77/2013 under Sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B RPC, arrested on 19 April 2013, and placed under suspension on 20 April 2013. A departmental inquiry was initiated on 24 April 2013.

The criminal court acquitted the applicant on 2 May 2024, finding that the alleged recovery and confessional statements were not reliably proved, material witnesses were not examined or did not support the prosecution, and the prosecution failed to establish the applicant’s connection with the alleged offences.

Independently, the departmental proceedings resulted in forfeiture of two annual increments and adverse regulation of portions of his suspension period, including treatment of 19 May 2013 to 5 June 2013 as dies non.

The applicant challenged Order No. 75 of 2025 dated 4 March 2025 and Order No. 378 of 2025 dated 18 July 2025, contending that the punishment was unsupported by reliable departmental evidence, the inquiry had suffered an unexplained delay of nearly eleven years, and the period from 12 June 2013 to 7 July 2014 remained unregulated.

Whether the O.A., its annexures, and the applicant’s earlier representations should be treated as a comprehensive representation for reconsideration of the punishment, pay consequences, and regulation of the relevant service periods?

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide that comprehensive representation by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, rules, legal framework, and Police Manual?

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the challenged punishment orders at this stage?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative or disciplinary authority must consider a representation in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, service rules, governing legal framework, and Police Manual, and must issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the settled procedural principle that, where the applicant seeks only consideration of his representation and the respondents have no objection, the matter may be disposed of by directing the competent authority to decide it without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s substantive challenges, including his acquittal in the criminal case, the alleged insufficiency of departmental evidence, the prolonged delay in concluding the inquiry, the forfeiture of increments, the treatment of a period as dies non, and the non-regulation of the subsequent period.

However, since the applicant voluntarily limited his prayer to consideration of the matter through a comprehensive representation, and the respondents raised no objection, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to determine the legality of the punishment orders or the effect of the acquittal at that stage.

The appropriate course was therefore to require the competent authorities to examine the O.A., its annexures, and the previous representations together and pass a reasoned order under the applicable service law and Police Manual.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A., all documents and annexures filed with it, and the grounds raised in the applicant’s earlier representations as a comprehensive representation, and to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the applicable law, rules, legal framework, and Police Manual.

The decision was to be taken within five weeks from service of a certified copy of the order and the O.A., subject to the applicant’s eligibility and entitlement and there being no legal impediment.