Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court says police surrendering weapons sans firing single round ‘act of cowardice’

“The failure of the Police Guards on duty to retaliate against an attack by the militants and surrendering their weapons without firing a single round is a serious act of cowardice, bringing moral disgrace to the police force as a whole,” the court observed.

While setting aside the trial court order, the court said such acts of the police guard who is posted for the safety of the people cannot be brushed aside lightly.

“Rule 337 itself provides that dismissal would be justified for acts of misconduct,e.g., fraud, dishonesty, corruption, and all offences involving moral disgrace. Viewed thus, it cannot even be remotely suggested that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the respondent is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved,” the court added.

Police to now focus more on law & order: Delhi CM on local bodies granting licence to businesses

Case

The case stems from the October 2021 trial court order, which quashed the 2016 termination of service order by the Kulgam SP of the constable.

In May 2016, the constable was posted as one of the in-charge Constabulary Guard personnel at the minority pickets at Adjin, Kulgam, when the militants attacked the picket, overpowered the police personnel, and forcibly snatched their service weapons without facing any resistance from the guard personnel, including the respondent.

Subsequently, the FIR was registered against the constable and was immediately placed under suspension.

The chargesheet was filed by the additional SP, Kulgam, in which the constable submitted his version of the incident and explained the role he played.

The constable alleged in his reply that, without conducting any further inquiry, without recording any witnesses, and without affording any opportunity of cross-examination, the Superintendent of Police, Kulgam, issued a show-cause notice proposing the imposition of a penalty.

He denied having exhibited any kind of carelessness or cowardice while performing his duties. income. He further pleaded for taking a humanitarian view in the matter, considering his long service of 24 years rendered in the Department. He also pleaded that he was a poor person and the job was his only source of income. Therefore, the trial court set aside the then SP Kulgam 2016 order.

Decision

The court held that the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Police Rules; that the respondent was afforded full and effective opportunity of hearing at every stage of the inquiry; that the principles of natural justice were scrupulously followed; and that no procedural irregularity, much less any illegality, has been demonstrated which could be said to have caused prejudice to the respondent.

“The judgment passed by the writ court is set aside, and the order of dismissal passed against the constable by the Disciplinary Authority is restored”, the court ruled.