MAQBOOL HUSSAIN SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge who granted relief to the appellant substantially but did not grant him consequential relief. The appeal has been filled in order to obtain consequential benefits primarily.

(2.) ON April 5, 1988, an order was passed by the Director Food and Supplies Jammu terminating the services of the appellant. There after, on April 24,1989 another order was passed for recovery of Rs. 3,72,365.10. Aggrieved by these two orders, the appellant filed SWP No. 121 of 1989. The Writ petition was contested by the respondents. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the order of termination of service had been passed in violation of Rule 34 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and Section 126 of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir State. He, therefore, quashed the said order. He, however, reserved liberty to the administration to hold fresh inquiry. After reserving this liberty, he observed: "... He will be charge -sheeted and will be allowed to participate in the proceedings, which maybe initiated against him...... I do not propose to pass any order directing the respondents to take the petitioner into service from today because the proceedings against him have emanated out of an allegation of his absence, without leave...."

(3.) REGARDING the order for recovery of amount, the learned Single Judge appears to have been of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be heard before the recovery is enforced against him. He did not pass a specific order quashing the order dated April 24,1989, but merely stayed its operation reserving liberty to the administration to take appropriate action after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. No appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge on behalf of the administration. Petitioner alone has come up in appeal.