To

The IG
Aux. Police IInd Bn
Jammu

Subject - appeal under section ____________ against an office order No. 69

of 1999 dated- 19-02-1999 of 2002 passed by worthy Commandant
Aux. Police IInd Bn. Jammu by virtue of which my client stands
removed from service in terms of Art 128 of JK CSR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS;

The appellant most respectfully submits as under:-

1. That appellant is aggrieved of office order No. 69 of 1999 dated- 19-

02-1999 of 2002 passed by worthy Commandant Aux. Police IInd
Bn. Jammu and seeks its reversal /quashment/set aside on the
grounds to follow. Certified copy of office order No. 69 of 1999
dated- 19-02-1999 of 2002 passed by worthy Commandant Aux.
Police IInd Bn. Jammu is enclosed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE-A.
2. That however before setting out the grounds of challenge, the
appellant submits the following background facts.
3. That the appellant was appointed as GM (water carrier) in the year
1990 via office order No. 3/7 of 1990 dated 3 sept 1990 and he was
allotted Regt No. 2970. Copy of the appointment order of the
appellant is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B.
4. That the appellant with his full potential has been serving the
department and it is an
5. That the department has an obligatory duty to satisfy itself before
taking away anyone’s source of livelihood. The department has
been awarding the timely punishments on account of which the
absence of the appellant has been compensated and he can’t be
awarded the punishment twice for one offence.
6.
7. That appellant was appointed as lady constable in J&K Poonch in
the year 1984. During her service, she was posted with police
station Kothi Bagh and was further deputed with police post Nehru
Park. In the year 2002 she applied for casual leave on 31-07-2002
and was granted and was due to resume her duties on 03-08-2002
but could not do the same on account of ailment of her daughter
and also due to ill health of appellant, she could not join in time
but being mess incharge of Nehru Park Police Post she has been
attending her duties and managing the affairs of the mess
successfully but despite that she was marked as absent in the
evening roll call.
8. The appellant resumed her duties on 31-08-2002 and also
submitted the application for intervening absence and further
requested to treat the said period as leave of whatever kind is due
to the appellant.
9. That without looking to the service record of the appellant and her
entitlement to get leave for a period of 26 days, a departmental
enquiry was initiated and appellant was chargesheeted, she denied
the charges and explained in detail the reason for her absence. The
enquiry officer was appointed who never asked the appellant to
produce an evidence and in ex-party concluded the enquiry and
 submitted the same to worthy SSP Srinagar forfeiting 1 year
increment and treating period of 26 days as dies-non.
10. That this order was never served on the appellant as would be
clear from the endorsement of the orders as well.
11. That once appellant came to know about the punishments
imposed, she requested for copy of the same along with proceedings
of the enquiry officer but she was never furnished thereby disabling
the appellant to perform the statutory appeal under Rule 364.
12. That appellant requested for issuance of certified copy
through her counsel which was furnished on 16-04-2022 and
thereafter appellant collected the material so as to enable her to
prefer the appeal. Accordingly the aforesaid appeal is being
preferred with a view to set aside the order No. 1957 of 2002 dated-
31-12-2002 and reverse the punishments on the following amongst
other grounds –

GROUNDS –
i. That the order under appeal is in violation of principles of
natural justice as the disciplinary authority never offered
any opportunity of hearing to the appellant before
imposing the punishments which is contrary to rule/law.
In the disciplinary authority, worthy SSP was obliged to
give the appellant a copy of the findings of the enquiry
officer short of his recommendation so that appellant
could make an effective representation. No copy of the jist
of the findings of the enquiry officer was furnished to the
appellant by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary
 authority. In absence whereof, the appellants right of
making an effective representation as conferred under Art
311 of the Constitution of India stands violated. On that
score alone the order under appeal deserves to be set
aside and quashed.
ii. That the standard of evidence in terms of Rule 260 of
Police Rules clearly lays down the applicability of
Evidence Act. This implies that the evidence which is
irrelevant in a specific change should be excluded and
similarly the evidence which is introduced to cloud the
issue should also be excluded. In terms of Rule 360 of
Police Rules it is also provided that a standard of proof
which is necessary to satisfy whatever the change is
proved or not has to be followed. In the instant case no
proper procedure was followed by the enquiry officer by
framing any charge against the appellant as required
under law and appellant was also never afforded any
opportunity by the enquiry officer for producing any
evidence in terms of Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules. A
casual approach was adopted contrary to Rule 359 of
Police Rules thereby completing the enquiry in a
mechanical fashion and also recommending imposition of
punishment which was outside the scope and
jurisdiction of the enquiry officer. On that score alone the
subsequent orders of imposition of punishment is unjust
and illegal which deserves to be set aside and quashed.
iii. That the daughter of appellant has been suffering from a
life consuming disease since her birth i.e 1989 and at
every stage of her life required constant care of the
appellant. Right from 1989 till date, the daughter of
appellant suffered from mental illness and has not fully
recovered. A certificate dated 29-01-2013 issued by head
deptt of Psychiatry to this effect is enclosed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-B. There are files of prescription
and treatment record which shall be produced during
personal hearing to satisfy the honable appellate
authority.
iv. That appellant cannot be imposed two punishments for
one act of misconduct. This is disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct and cannot be imposed for a single
act. The forfeiture of one year increment and thereafter
treating the period of 26 days as dies non is further an
additional punishment for the given act of misconduct
which is not permissible under law.
v. That this aspect was not considered by the disciplinary
authority while agreeing with the recommendation of the
enquiry officer. On that score alone the order under
appeal deserves to be set aside and quashed.
vi. That the appellant had sufficient leave in her account.
She specifically requested to the enquiry officer as well as
to the disciplinary authority to treat this period of 26
days as leave of whatever kind is due but this request
was never considered and not a single word has been
answered regarding availability of the quantum of leave
due to the appellant. Any employee has a right to seek
annual leave/casual leave/maturity leave etc under
service rules/leave rules. The non-treatment of period of
26 days in leave without any justifiable reason has
caused serious injustice as well as serious loss to the
appellant. The appellant being a lady constable has
rendered her services during the tough days of militancy
and was required to be given some leniency but a harsh
view has been taken thereby imposing a punishment
which is disproportionate to the guilt of the accused. On
that score alone, the order under appeal deserves to be
set aside and quashed. That appeal is within time from
the date the certified copy of the order is received by the
appellant in terms of Clause (b) of Rule 369 of Police
Rules as the appellant was served the copy of the order in
response to a request for issuance of certified copy
through her counsel on 22-04-2022 and thereafter,
necessary record was collected and the instant appeal is
filed. The period of limitation being 90 days from 22-04-
2022, the appeal is well within time. Even otherwise, the
impugned order adversely affected the salary of the
applicant which furnishes a continuing cause hence the
appeal may be treated as within time application filed
and thereafter receipt of the copy of the order under
 appeal, this appeal is filed which may be treated well
within time from the date of the knowledge of the certified
copy of the appeal.

IN THE PREMISES-

It is most humbly prayed that your honour may

be pleased to allow the appeal and set aside and reverse Order No.
1957 of 2002 dated 31-12-2002 passed by worthy SSP Srinagar and
restore the annual increment of the appellant for a period of one
year which was forfeited and also restore the service benefits
available to the appellant for the service rendered w.e.f 08-08-2002
to 31-08-2002 by treating the order of dies non as null and void,
ineffective and inoperative.

With regards

Yours sincerely

PLACE- Jammu Neelofer Akhter

DATED-