ABDUL RASHID DURRANI Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, in this Petition, has sought the indulgence of this Court for granting him the following relief(s):

(2.) The precise case set up by the Petitioner is that he, in the year 1983, came to be appointed as a Waiter on ad hoc basis in the Respondent-Department, whereafter he is stated to have been regularized on substantive basis over the said post in 1985. Subsequently, the Petitioner claims to have been promoted to the post of Floor Supervisor in the year 2008. It is stated that the Petitioner was sent on deputation with the Tourism Department and attached to the Personnel Sec. of the then Tourism Minister till September, 2008, whereafter he was ordered to be posted at different places in the Corporation, including at TE Gulmarg and Cheshmashahi Hutments. The Petitioner is, again, stated to have been attached with the Member Legislative Council w.e.f. 1st of May, 2010 till 31st of December, 2011. Thereafter, the Respondents are stated to have, without any rhyme or reason, withheld the pay emoluments of the Petitioner since 1st of May, 2010 and subsequently, on 22nd of August, 2012, in terms of Order No. 152/Adm/JKTDC of 2012, the services of the Petitioner came to be terminated w.e.f. 31st of May, 2010 on the basis of allegation of unauthorized absence from duty. The Petitioner claims to have represented before the Respondents for seeking the redressal of his grievance qua the impugned termination order and non-release of salary, besides seeking reinstatement in service and treating the intervening period of his absence from duty w.e.f. 18th of February, 2007 till 22nd of July, 2013 as dies-non on the analogy of one Rouf Jan Sheikh, Sweeper, who too was terminated for unauthorized absence from duty, however, no action thereto was taken by the Respondents.

(3.) Objections stand filed on behalf of the Respondents, thereby resisting the claim made by the Petitioner in his Petition. It is submitted that, on the representation/ application of the Petitioner, the Earned Leave for the period of 90 days was sanctioned in his favour from 2nd of March, 2010 and the Petitioner was supposed to join back the services in the Corporation from 31st of May, 2010, however, the Petitioner did not join back the services and choose to remain continuously absent from duty. It is pleaded that the Petitioner was given ample opportunities to resume his duties by serving a number of explanations/ notices upon him, but the Petitioner failed to resume back the duties nor did he tender any reply to the said notices. It is contended that, in these circumstances, the Respondents, while following due procedure prescribed by law and after providing ample opportunities to the Petitioner, were compelled to pass an order of suspension against the Petitioner on 18th of November, 2011 with further direction to the inquiry officer to conduct inquiry into the unauthorized absence of the Petitioner. The inquiry officer, as stated, conducted a detailed inquiry and found that the Petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent from his legitimate duties, thereby making him liable for administrative action as per rules. On the basis of the findings of the inquiry proceedings, it is submitted that a detailed charge sheet was framed against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was, through the medium of the said charge sheet, directed to show cause the reason of his unauthorized absence with further direction to resume the duties within a period of 15 days, however, the Petitioner never replied to the said charge sheet nor did he join back his duties. Accordingly, the final show cause notice is stated to have been addressed to the Petitioner on 10th of July, 2012 to show cause as to why the services of the Petitioner shall not be terminated, but the Petitioner, as claimed, did not reply to the said show cause notice. Upon noticing the casual approach of the Petitioner and after following due procedure prescribed by law, the Respondents terminated the services of the Petitioner on the grounds of unauthorized absence from duty. In the end, it is urged that the Petition of the Petitioner, in view of the above facts, be dismissed.