PARKASH CHANDER CHOWDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner way back on 10th September, 1963 was vide Government Order No. 80/COOP of 1963, appointed as Assistant Registrar in Cooperative Department of the State Government and later vide Order No. Adm./1939-47 dated 19th June, 1972 transferred and posted as such at Bani, District Kathua. Due to personal problems, the petitioner could not join at new place of posting and applied for casual leave w.e.f. 20th June, 1972 to 24th June, 1972. This was followed by successive leave applications till March, 1973. The petitioner because of his failure to report to his duty was placed under suspension and charge sheeted. The charge sheet was published in the Government Gazette in March, 1973 to which reply was submitted by the petitioner in May 1973. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies - respondent No. 2 herein, not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, directed an enquiry to be held by the Joint Registrar Headquarters. The results of enquiry prompted the Registrar, Cooperatives to pass order No. Adm/491-92 dated 19th June, 1974, terminating the service of the petitioner.

(2.) The aforementioned order terminating the service of the petitioner is assailed in the present writ petition on the grounds that as the casual leave application dated 19th June, 1972 and the applications submitted thereafter for extension having not been expressly rejected by the respondents, the respondents were not justified in treating the petitioner as absent from duty. It is next pleaded that the charge sheet having been framed by an incompetent officer was not sustainable inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed by Government and the Government alone had powers to frame the charge sheet against the petitioner. The charge sheet, again, according to the petitioner, was vague and not accompanied by the details of his alleged misconduct, list of documents to be relied upon, preventing the petitioner from submitting an effective reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner further claims to have been not in a position to defend the charge sheet because of failure on part of the respondents to pays subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The enquiry in consequence of charge sheet is said to have been held in violation of principle of natural justice without giving due weight age to reply to the charge sheet submitted by petitioner and further denying the petitioner an adequate opportunity to project and prove his case set up in reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner complains that the report of the enquiry was not served upon him and he was not made aware of the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and material on such conclusions were not based. The respondents, once the charges were claimed to have been proved, are said to have avoided to issue a show cause notice as regards the proposed punishment to the petitioner, so as to enable the petitioner to convince the respondents that proposed punishment was harsh, excessive and unwarranted. The petitioner questions the impugned order on the ground that it was issued by incompetent Authority in terms of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956. It is insisted that as the petitioner was appointed by the Government and not by the Registrar, Cooperatives, only the Government was competent to terminate service of the petitioner. The petitioner conscious that he was approaching the Court with the writ petition, questioning an order after lapse of 34 years, seeks to explain the delay on the ground that the order was never served on the petitioner; that the respondents did not reject any of the successive representations made by the petitioner from the date of termination of his services till filing of the writ petition; that the petitioner because of his transfer to Bani and termination, thereafter, was caught in financial crisis and was not in a position to question his termination. It is insisted that exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction at belated stage is not forbidden by any rule of procedure but purely a rule of practice and that Court is competent to entertain a writ petition and grant a writ even where the petitioner approaches the Court after considerable delay but is in a position to explain such delay in filing the writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.