Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Bilal Ahmad Yatoo vs Union Territory Of Jk & Ors on 9 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Vinod Chatterji Koul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 1141/2023
Reserved on 28.04.2025
Pronounced on 09.05.2025
Bilal Ahmad Yatoo ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Aswad Attar, Adv.
Vs.
Union Territory of JK & Ors. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, AC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Kumar, J
1. This petition by the petitioner filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is directed against an order and judgment dated
24nd February 2023 passed in OA No. 693/2022 titled Bilal Ahmad
Yatoo vs Union Territory of JK & Ors. passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar Bench ["the Tribunal"] whereby the
tribunal has dismissed the OA of the petitioner being devoid of any
merit.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge, we deem it appropriate
to narrate few facts which are germane to the disposal of this petition.
3. The petitioner was selected as Constable in the J&K Police vide PHQ
Order No. 1935 of 2016 dated 25th June 2016 and vide subsequent
order bearing No. 598 of 2016 dated 15th November 2016, the
petitioner was allotted No. 859/XII. He was put on basic recruitment
training course, Session 2016-2017 held at STC Talwara. It has come
on record that the petitioner absented twice during his training for
which he was also awarded censure as punishment. Be that as it may,
the petitioner completed his BRTC, but immediately thereafter,
instead of joining his active duties, he applied for 40 days earned
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
09.05.2025
leave. The competent authority, however, sanctioned only 20 days
earned leave in his favour. The petitioner had barely performed his
active duties for two months that he applied for voluntary resignation
on 11th July 2018. The resignation letter was supported by an affidavit
in which the petitioner has cited some domestic problems. The
resignation was accepted by the Commandant on same day i.e., 11 th
July 2018 vide Order No. 601 of 2018.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the tribunal by way of
OA No. 237/2022 which was disposed of on 7 th April 2022 with a
direction to the respondents to consider the averments made in the OA
as a representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same by
passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks.
5. In compliance with the aforesaid order of the tribunal, the respondents
considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same
vide its order dated 12th April 2021. It is this order of the respondents
which was called in question by the petitioner in OA No. 693/2022.
The OA was contested by the respondents by filing their counter
affidavit. The tribunal considered the rival contentions in light of the
material on record and came to the conclusion that the order passed by
the respondents rejecting the representation of the petitioner was
perfectly legal and, therefore, did not call for any interference. The
tribunal after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Wing Commander T.
Parthasarathy, JT 2000 (Suppl) 2 SC 490, dismissed the OA of the
petitioner. This is how the petitioner is before us seeking to challenge
the judgment of the tribunal as also the order of the Commandant
accepting the resignation of the petitioner.
6. The impugned judgment is assailed by the petitioner primarily on the
following grounds:
1. That the tribunal has failed to appreciate that the
resignation which was submitted by the petitioner to his
Commandant on 11th July 2018 was not voluntary and
was under coercion from the militants of a banned
militant organization.
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
09.05.2025
2. That the tribunal also did not appreciate that in terms of
Section 10 of the Police Act, 1983, the resignation
submitted by the petitioner was to be treated as "intention
to resign" and given effect to only after two months of its
submission.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by
the tribunal is perfectly legal and does not call for any interference by
us in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction vested under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Indisputably, the resignation letter submitted by petitioner was
supported by an affidavit in which the petitioner had clearly cited
domestic problems as reason for such resignation. The story projected
by the petitioner that he and his family were under threat from the
militants to resign is an afterthought and concocted after the
acceptance of the resignation. We could not find any document,
communication or representation on record made by the petitioner
prior to submission of the resignation which would indicate that the
petitioner had informed his superiors about the threat which he and his
family members were facing from the militants. Otherwise also, the
career of the petitioner has not remained satisfactory. The petitioner
being enrolled as Constable in the J&K Police had the audacity to
remain absent twice during his training at STC Talwara. While he was
on training, he was also awarded the minor punishment of 'censure'.
As was expected, the petitioner ought to have joined his active duties
after completion of his training, however, the petitioner applied for
earned leave and thereafter performed his duties only for a period of
two months. It seems that the petitioner was never interested to serve
as Constable in the J&K Police and, therefore, within two months of
his being on active duty, he submitted his resignation on 11 th July
2018. The resignation was accepted by the competent authority on the
same day. We, therefore, are not inclined to accept the submissions of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the resignation which the
petitioner submitted on 11th July 2018 was not voluntary, but one
under coercion from militants.
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
09.05.2025
9. Section 10 of the Police Act, 1983 which is strongly relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:-
10. Police officer not to resign without leave or two
months' notice.- No Police Officer shall be at
liberty to withdraw himself from the duties of his
office, unless expressly allowed to do so by the
Superintendent or by some other officer authorized
to grant such permission or without the leave of the
Superintendent, to resign his office, unless he shall
have given to his superior officer notice in writing,
for a period of not less than two months, of his
intention to resign."
10. From plain reading of Section 10, it is evident that a police officer is
not permitted to resign without leave of Superintendent unless he has
given a prior notice of not less than two months of his intention to
resign. However, nothing prevents the Superintendent to accept
resignation forthwith.
11. In the instant case, there should be no dispute with regard to the fact
that the petitioner, who had submitted his voluntary resignation on
11th July 2018, was permitted to resign by the Commandant by
accepting his resignation on the same day. It is thus beyond any
shadow of doubt that the petitioner had resigned from his post with
the leave of the Commandant and, therefore, there was no requirement
of treating his resignation as his 'intention to resign' and wait for two
months period to expire before its acceptance.
12. Viewed from any angle, we find no merit in this petition, same is
accordingly dismissed.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
09.05.2025
Altaf
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
Mohd Altaf Nima
I attest to the accuracy
and authenticity of this
09.05.2025
