GHULAM FATIMA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash Order No.141 of 2008 dtd. 3/1/2008 issued by the Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar, Respondent No.2 herein, by virtue of which the petitioner came to be terminated from service with effect from 19/5/1983 for remaining unauthorized absence from duty. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents either to treat her to be in service or pay post retiral benefits.

(2.) It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner held the post of Nursing Supervisor at S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar on substantive basis. On 18/2/1983 she applied for 30 days leave. Thereafter, the leave was extended by the petitioner for a period of 60 days from 18/3/1983 to 18/5/1983, which was also sanctioned. It is averred thereafter too she sought further extension of her leave from time to time, but at no stage the respondents responded to the leave applications and the petitioner bonafidely believed that her leave applications have been sanctioned. Thereafter, in the year 1995 she sought voluntary retirement from service with effect from the month of June, 1995 on completion of 20 years of qualifying service. However, instead of acceding to the request of petitioner, respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner on 8/5/1999 asking her why her services be not terminated on account of unauthorized absence. It is averred that the petitioner replied to the said notice on 16/8/1999 and also filed SWP No.697/2002 in the High Court. It is further averred that vide order dtd. 19/5/2004 the High Court directed the respondents to take a final decision to the show cause notice dtd. 5/8/1999 within a period of six months. However, respondent No.2 vide Order No.141 of 2008 dtd. 3/1/2008 terminated the services of petitioner with effect from 19/5/1983 for remaining unauthorized absent from duty. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that the order-under-challenge is bad in law as the services of petitioner came to be terminated without conducting any inquiry nor the petitioner was ever afforded an opportunity of hearing. He further argued that respondent No.2 was not the competent authority to pass the order impugned. Learned counsel also argued that absence without leave or after the end of the leave does not involve loss of appointment if the post of alleged absentee is substantively filled.