NASEER AHMAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through the medium of the instant petition, has called in question Order bearing No. Estt/Dism/7221/38BN/2008/1562-75 dtd. 4/2/2008 passed by Respondent No.3 and has also prayed for summoning of the record from the respondents-office. Besides, the petitioner is seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in his original position and pay him all the service benefits as accrued to him with effect from 4/2/2008 till date with all consequential benefits, which are due to him since 2007. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Cook in Border Security Force on 23/3/1996 and he proceeded on leave with effect from 5/6/2007 to 22/7/2007. The petitioner belongs to a far-flung area of Tehsil Karnah District Kupwara. It is the specific case of the petitioner that when the petitioner reached his home town, all of a sudden, the health of the petitioner deteriorated and the petitioner was accordingly, admitted to Sub District Hospital Tangdar Karnah on 15 th June, 2007 and accordingly, he was advised to take bed rest.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that the Order of his dismissal, which has been issued by the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Commandant 37 BN C/O 56 APO, received by him on 9/3/2008 was passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without providing him an opportunity of being heard. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed a detailed representation before the respondents, narrating therein whole situation, which has been faced by the petitioner as well as by his family members, wherein the petitioner has pleaded that he, as well as his family members, was receiving threats from the militant organizations. He further submits that the Respondent No. 3 has issued a communication to the petitioner on 7/4/2008 through registered post, wherein Respondent No.3 has rejected the representation of the petitioner without providing any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.