MOHD AKBER BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLEGED unauthorized absence has brought into existence an order of suspension which is the cause being advanced by the petitioner, to justify his absence to have a restraint placed upon the respondents from taking further steps in consequence to the notice requiring him to show cause against his termination.

(2.) A similar controversy had come up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in case Syed Faheem Ali Bukhari v. State of J&K reported in SLJ 2001 page 374. Paras 8 and 9 may be extracted: "8. The core question in this appeal is as to whether the statutory notice issued to Govt.employee by competent authority under statutory rules for explaining the conduct of unauthorized absence can be called in question before a court. In a case titled as State of Utter Pradesh v. Shri Brahm Datt Sharma and another reported as AIR 1987 SC 943 wherein a similar question as to whether the show cause notice issued to a Govt.servant by the Government under statutory provisions calling upon to show cause why an action contemplated against him under statutory provisions was invalid and liable to be quashed came up for consideration of their Lordships wherein their lordships in Para No. 9 of the judgment have observed that: - "When a show cause notice is issued to a Government servant under a statutory provision calling upon him to show cause, ordinarily the Govt.Servant must place his case before the authority concerned by showing cause and the courts should be reluctant to interfere with the notice at that stage unless the notice is show to have been issued palpably without any authority of law. The purpose of issuing show cause is to afford opportunity of hearing to the Government servant and once cause is show it is open to the Government to consider the submission placed by the Govt.servant and only thereafter a final decision in the matter could be taken. Interference by the Court before that stage would be premature." 9. The notice dated 14.12.1999 which is impugned in the writ petition is issued by the Respondent No. 1, it is nowhere the case of the appellant that the respondent No. 1 is not competent to issue cause notice to him for explaining his conduct of unauthorized absence. This being so the above law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above said authority is applicable squarely to the facts of this case. Therefore, from the afore discussed facts and law the impugned order recorded by the learned Single Judge is absolutely legal and deserves to be affirmed. Therefore, the appeal being without any force is disallowed and the impugned order recorded by the Learned Single Judge is affirmed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The appeal is accordingly disposed of."

(3.) APPLYING the precedent the writ petition is liable to dismissal.