STATE OF J&K Vs. RANA SAJJAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar in CIA No: 13 dated: 21 -10 -1999 and judgment and decree dated: 25 -11 -1998 passed by learned IInd Subordinate Sub Judge (Passenger Tax), Srinagar.

(2.) RECORD reveals that respondent was appointed as Sub Inspector in the Police Department vide Order No: 718 of 1982 dated: 07 -08 -1982. After completing his training and period of probation, respondent came to be adjusted as Sub Inspector and was transferred to JIC, Srinagar in the year 1990. Respondent, on account of involvement of his work received threats of elimination of respondent and his other family members and under these circumstances the respondent applied for leave of one month. The respondent, after expiry of leave period, requested for his transfer from JIC, Srinagar, or in the alternative to provide security cover for his family members. The request, of the respondent was not conceded and respondent thereafter reported for his duties, at the risk of his life but he was not permitted to resume the charge of his office, without giving any reason or serving any show cause notice. The respondent made number of representations and mercy petitions, which were ignored and instead, without informing the respondent, he was struck off from, the roles of the department vide Order No: 259 of 1990 dated: 24 -11 -1990. Respondent, moved another representation on 17 -09 -1994, requesting for revocation of the said order but no action was taken inspite of repeated requests. Thereafter, respondent served notice U/s 80 CPC on 19 -11 -1994 and ultimately after exhausting all normal remedies, respondent filed civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Passenger Tax. Srinagar.

(3.) THE stand taken by the appellants in the said suit was that the representation of the respondent was rejected vide Order dated: 26 -06 -1995 and the respondent has been removed from service vide Order No: 280 of 1993 dated: 26 -06 -1995. In view of the knowledge of termination, the respondent was permitted to amend the suit and challenge the order of termination. The trial Court, after full trial, and on consideration of the merits of the suit, decreed the suit vide decree and judgment dated: 25 -11 -998 and declared the order No: 259 of 1990 dated 24 -11 -1990 and order of removal No. 280 of 1995 dated: 26 -06 -1995, void, with consequential relief to declare the respondent in service entitled to pay and all other benefits.