Mohd. Akram vs Union Of India & Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 304 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Mohd. Akram vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 February, 2026

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                  Serial No. 101

 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT JAMMU

WP(C) No. 182/2026
CM No. 429/2026

Mohd. Akram
                                                        .....Appellant

                   Through: Mr. Ajaz Chowdhary, Advocate

              Vs

Union of India & Ors.


                                                     .....Respondents

                   Through: Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice
                            Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
                          ORDER

(03.02.2026)

01. The petitioner has challenged order dated 07.08.2025

issued by the respondent No. 4-Senior Divisional Security

Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern

Railway, Srinagar, whereby he has been removed from

service with immediate effect in exercise of powers under

Section 161 of RPF Rules, 1987 without holding any

enquiry against him.

02. Admit.

03. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Sumant Sudan,

learned Advocate vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI

accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks

time to file counter affidavit. Time is granted. Needful be

done by the next date of hearing.

04. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of

grant of interim relief and perused the record of the case.

05. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that although the respondent No. 4 had the

power to dispense with holding of enquiry while removing

the petitioner from service, yet having regard to the

nature of allegations against the petitioner, such a

drastic step could not have been taken by respondent No.

4. It has further been contended that vide the impugned

order, respondent No. 4, has without holding any enquiry

against the petitioner, held him guilty of the charge, at a

stage when even the charge sheet against the petitioner is

yet to be filed before the competent court.

06. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

has submitted that once respondent No. 4 has recorded

reasons for dispensing with the enquiry, the impugned

order satisfies the requirements of Rule 161 of the RPF

Rules, as such, it cannot be stated that the same is not

in accordance with law.

07. If we have to look at the nature of allegations levelled

against the petitioner, prima-facie it appears that the

same are not of such a heinous nature as would have

made it impracticable for respondent No. 4 to hold a

regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It

appears that the respondent No. 4 while passing the

impugned order was mainly swayed by his enthusiasm to

set an example for other employees. Prima-facie, the

aforesaid reason cannot form a ground for dispensing

with the enquiry. In view of the aforesaid extra-ordinary

circumstances, this Court is persuaded to show interim

indulgence in favour of the petitioner at this stage.

08. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.08.2025

passed by respondent No. 4-(Senior Divisional Security

Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern

Railway, Srinagar) is stayed. While taking the petitioner

back in employment, the respondents shall be at liberty

to place him under suspension till further orders.

09. List this case on 23.03.2026.

(SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 03.02.2026 SUNIL