Jammu, Sep 25: In O.A./1174/2026 (JAMMU) [ DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ] titled RAKESH SINGH Vs RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT after hearing VAT ordered as under:-
1. The learned A.A.G. has not filed reply to the O.A. as well as inquiry report, as per direction given in the last order dated 20.08.2026.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that impugned Order No. 203-JK (RD &PR) of 2026 dated 29.07.2026, is not sustainable under law, which has been passed dehors Rules 33, 34 and 35 of Jammu & Kashmir (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and without application of mind.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel that no effort has been made by the three member inquiry committee headed by Respondent No. 3, to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry process, which has been conducted in absence of the applicant, besides, the Committee has opined in its Inquiry Report that the penalty under the relevant rule may be imposed against the applicant after following due process of law.
3. According to the learned counsel, Respondent No. 1 (Disciplinary Authority) on receipt of the Enquiry Report has not issued notice to the applicant nor copy of the inquiry officer’s report has been supplied to him, in terms of Rule 34 and 35 of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.
4. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that the impugned order, whereby the applicant during his suspension period has been dismissed from service and also disqualified from any future employment with the government, be stayed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgements in the case of Bahadur Singh Vs State reported in 2005 (1) SLJ 51 2004 (3) JKJ 275 HC and Nazir Ahmed Dar Vs. State and others 2015 (4) JKJ 356 [HC] and also on the recent judgement of Hon’ble High Court in WP (C) No. 182 of 2026 dated 03.02.2026 in the case of Mohammad Akram Vs Union of India and others.
5. The learned A.A.G. appearing for the respondents while defending the impugned contended that applicant is involved in FIR No. 33/2021 u/s 8/20/29 of NDPS Act and, therefore, his conduct is unbecoming of a government servant.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on careful perusal of the authorities cited above, it is apparent that the mandate as contained in Rule 33 of CCA Rules, which deals with dismissal removal or reduction in rank of a permanent employee has not been followed.
Similar is the position granted under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Ex facie, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of Article 311 of Constitution and also in violation to the statutory protections granted under CCA Rules, more particularly Rule 33.
7. The applicant has succeeded in making out a prima facie case in his favour.
8. Accordingly, as an interim measure, subject to objections from other side and till the next date of hearing, the impugned order is stayed.
9. The learned A.A.G. shall file reply to the O.A. by the next date of hearing with advance copy to learned counsel for the applicant.
10. List on 17.11.2026.
Pragya Sahay Saksena Member (A) Sanjeev Gupta Member (J)
|