HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2042/2025 Jonesh Kumar …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- None CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 30.07.2025 01. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 25.07.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 02. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Sub Inspector in the year 2011 and has been promoted as an Inspector and at present, he is serving in the Special Operations Group, Dudu, Udhampur Range. 03. The respondent No. 4 issued an Order No. 117 of 2025, dated 22.05.2025, by which a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and entrusted to SDPO Chenani, who was directed to submit his findings to this office within a fortnight through SSP Udhampur. 04. The grievance of the petitioner is that a complaint was moved before respondent No. 3 by a lady, who is not known to the petitioner and has no locus to file the same. The respondent No. 3 has initiated enquiry against the petitioner in violation of the rules and directed respondent No. 5 to initiate enquiry proceedings under Rule 349(2) of J&K Police Rules, 1960. 05. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents before initiating enquiry had to consider whether the delinquent officer had committed an offence as defined in RPC/BNS and whether the alleged offence has been committed under the colour of his duties. The respondents without considering the same have proceeded to initiate disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the complaint which has been filed by a political leader and which reveals that no offence has been committed by the petitioner under the colour of his duties for which disciplinary enquiry can be initiated. 06. The petitioner, accordingly, preferred an OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal and sought interim direction, seeking stay of the departmental enquiry initiated vide order No. 117 of 2025 dated 22.05.2025. The Tribunal vide its order dated 25.07.2025 declined to interfere with it at the stage of enquiry. 07. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry has been initiated and is being conducted in violation of Rule 359 of the J&K Police Rule, 1960, as such, the Tribunal should have interfered and provided interim protection to the petitioner by staying the enquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that no alleged offence has been committed by the petitioner under the colour of duties, against which, disciplinary enquiry was ordered to be initiated. The respondents while passing the impugned order have not recorded any reasons for the same. 08. The submission of the petitioner that the order of departmental enquiry is without any basis and the fact that the enquiry is being conducted in violation of Rule 359 of J&K Police Rules, 1960 is yet to be considered by the Tribunal. 09. The Tribunal is yet to independently adjudicate the issue, which is pending before it and in which, the next date is fixed for 27.08.2025. We, therefore, are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal at this stage and we also request the Tribunal to decide this petition expeditiously as possible. This apart, the relief in the interim is also the relief in main petition and would have practically the effect of granting the main relief. 10. In the present case, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal that warrants interference from this ordinary discretionary jurisdiction. 11. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu: 30.07.2025 Ram Murti Whether approved for speaking : Yes/No Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No