The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has restored the dismissal of a Selection Grade Constable, holding that his removal from service for failing to resist militants who snatched service weapons was lawful and based on a procedurally valid departmental inquiry.
The Division Bench overturned a Single Judge ruling that had earlier quashed the dismissal on grounds of violation of procedural safeguards under the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules.
Case Details
- Case Title: UT of J&K & Ors. v. Bashir Ahmad Mir
- Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
- Coram: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar
- Case Number: LPA No. 27/2022
- Date of Judgment: 18 December 2025
- Citation: 2025:JKLHC-SGR:356-DB
Background of the Case
Bashir Ahmad Mir was appointed as a Constable in 1992 and, in May 2016, was posted as in-charge of a minority guard picket at Adjin, Kulgam.
On the intervening night of 7–8 May 2016, militants attacked the picket, overpowered the guard personnel, and forcibly snatched their service weapons.
No resistance was offered, and not a single round was fired by the guards.
An FIR was registered in connection with the incident, and Mir was placed under suspension.
Departmental proceedings were initiated, culminating in his dismissal from service by the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam, on 13 October 2016.
Challenge Before the Writ Court
Mir approached the High Court through a writ petition, contending that his dismissal violated Rule 359 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960.
He argued that:
- The inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
- He was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
- The Additional Superintendent of Police was not competent to act as the Inquiry Officer.
- The disciplinary authority failed to consider mitigating provisions under Rules 336 and 337 of the Police Rules.
Accepting these arguments, the Single Judge quashed the dismissal order, prompting the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to file the present intra-court appeal.
Rule 359 and Departmental Inquiry Procedure
The Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of Rule 359, which lays down the step-by-step procedure for conducting departmental inquiries against police personnel. The rule mandates:
- Service of a summary of allegations.
- Recording of oral and documentary evidence.
- Opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
- Framing of formal charges.
- Opportunity for the delinquent officer to lead defence evidence.
- Issuance of a show-cause notice before imposition of major penalties.
The court noted that these safeguards exist to ensure fairness but do not shield an officer from consequences of proven misconduct.
Findings on Compliance with Rule 359
After examining the original inquiry record, the Bench held that the entire procedure under Rule 359 had been “scrupulously followed.”
It recorded that:
- The respondent was served with a summary of allegations and pleaded not guilty.
- Witnesses were examined in his presence, and he was given an opportunity to cross-examine them.
- A formal charge-sheet was framed and replied to by the respondent.
- He was given an opportunity to produce defence evidence but chose not to do so.
- A show-cause notice of proposed penalty was issued and duly replied to before dismissal.
The court observed that “each and every step envisaged in Rule 359… has been scrupulously followed,” rejecting the finding of procedural breach recorded by the writ court.
Competence of the Inquiry Officer
Addressing the objection that the Additional Superintendent of Police lacked jurisdiction, the Bench relied on the statutory definition under the Police Act, which includes Assistant or Additional Superintendents within the meaning of “Superintendent of Police.”
It held that an Additional SP was competent to conduct an inquiry against a Selection Grade Constable and to recommend dismissal.
The court described the writ court’s contrary conclusion as
“wholly erroneous and not supported by the Police Act and the rules framed thereunder.”
Proportionality of Punishment
On the question of punishment, the Bench emphasised that surrendering service weapons without firing a single round amounted to
“a serious act of cowardice bringing moral disgrace to the police force as a whole.”
It referred to Rule 337, which recognises dismissal as a justified penalty for acts involving moral disgrace.
The court categorically held that the punishment of dismissal could not be said to be “shockingly disproportionate” to the gravity of the misconduct proved.
Scope of Judicial Review
Reiterating settled principles, the Bench underlined that courts exercising writ jurisdiction do not sit in appeal over disciplinary findings.
Judicial review is confined to examining:
- Competence of the authority.
- Adherence to prescribed procedure.
- Compliance with principles of natural justice.
- Whether findings are based on some evidence.
The Bench found no perversity, procedural illegality, or violation of natural justice warranting interference.
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and restored the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority. It concluded that the inquiry was lawful, the respondent was afforded full opportunity of defence, and the penalty imposed was justified in law.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
UT Of J&K Vs Bashir Ahmad Mir
