Respondents must decide the applicant’s claims as a representation by a reasoned order within six weeks.

The applicant was selected and appointed as a Constable by Order No. 2055 of 1997 dated 13 November 1997.

During training, he allegedly suffered a serious injury, lost consciousness, and remained under medical treatment for a considerable period.

After being declared medically fit, he approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Baramulla, seeking permission to resume duty and submitted medical documents.

The applicant had earlier filed SWP No. 111/2017 before the High Court, which directed Respondent No. 3 to decide his representation by a speaking order.

The authority thereafter rejected or declined his claim on the ground that he had remained absent from training and that an ex parte departmental enquiry had been initiated against him.

The applicant disputed the alleged discharge order, contending that it had neither been served upon him nor his family, and challenged the respondents’ failure to properly consider his medical evidence and representation.

During hearing, he limited his prayer to a direction that the Transfer Application be treated as a representation and decided in accordance with law.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to treat the Transfer Application as a representation and reconsider the applicant’s claims, medical documents, and related assertions in accordance with law.

2. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicant’s entitlement to reinstatement or the validity of the alleged discharge and departmental proceedings at this stage.

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative fairness and natural justice requiring a competent authority to consider a representation, relevant documents, and the affected party’s claims in accordance with the applicable rules, and to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order.

It further applied the judicial restraint principle that, where the applicant seeks consideration of a representation and the authority has not adequately adjudicated the underlying claims, the Tribunal may remit the matter for fresh consideration without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s limited prayer was for consideration of his claims and supporting medical documents rather than an immediate adjudication of reinstatement or the validity of the discharge order.

Since the respondents agreed to disposal with appropriate directions, the Tribunal found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

It therefore directed the respondents to examine the Transfer Application as a representation, consider the annexed documents, and decide all relevant factual and legal questions under the applicable rules.

By expressly leaving the merits open, the Tribunal avoided determining whether the applicant’s absence was medically justified, whether the ex parte enquiry was valid, or whether the discharge order had been properly served.

The respondents were directed to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order within six weeks from service of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits, leaving all questions of fact and law open to the competent authority.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.