Jammu, Oct 10: In O.A./1374/2026 (JAMMU) [ DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ] title VIMAL KUMAR Vs JAL SHAKTI DEPARTMENT after hearing CAT ordered as under;-
1. Ms. Vanaya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is aggrieved of Government Order No. 143-JK (JSD) of 2026 dated 24.08.2026 (in short impugned order) issued by respondent No. 1, whereby he has been dismissed from service with immediate effect and has been disqualified from any future employment with the Government.
2. Learned counsel has submitted that impugned Order, is not sustainable under law, which has been passed dehors Rule 33, 34 & 35 of Jammu & Kashmir (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and also without application of mind. It is further urged by learned counsel that no effort has been made by the Inquiry Officer, to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry process, which has been conducted in absence of the applicant.
3. According to the learned counsel, the respondents 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 Rules 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 her 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].
5. Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned A.A.G. appearing for the respondents, on advance notice, while defending the impugned order, contended that applicant is involved in FIR No. 37/2017 U/s 8/20/21/29 of NDPS Act and therefore, his conduct is unbecoming of a public 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 the 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)
|