ATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the exercise of power conferred under Article 128 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services Regulations and several enabling provisions, the services of the petitioners have been brought to an end. This was on the plea that he was on unauthorised absence. This order was passed on 20th Jan99. The petitioner has challenged this order through the medium of present writ petition.

(2.) A perusal of order impugned makes it apparent that the petitioner was sent notices through the concerned police station to resume his duties. As the petitioner failed to do so, the respondents got published a Show cause notice on 30th Oct98. The petitioner however, made no reply. Para 7 of the order impugned further makes it apparent that some previous lapses on the part of the petitioner have also been taken note of. If this be the position then, this single lacuna on the part of respondent authorities is good enough to set aside the order impugned. Dealing with a matter of similar nature in AIR 1964 SC 506, The State of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, the Supreme Court of India expressed an opinion that if previous record of a Government servant is to be taken note of for imposing punishment, then specific charge regarding this should be made at the first stage of enquiry. What was said in this regard in para 8 of the judgement is being reproduced below: -

(3.) AS indicated above, this requirement has not been fulfilled by the respondent authorities. In para 5 of the petition, the petitioner submits that on 20th Nov98 he approached respondent No. 2 for allowing him to resume his duties but the said officer did not allow him. It is submitted that the said officer told the petitioner that he will be allowed to join only after the enquiry is completed. For facility of reference this para is being reproduced below: -