NAZIR AHMAD KHAN Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Terminated from service on the ground of unauthorized absence vide order No.378/90 dated 22.05.1990, the petitioner, a constable in J&K Armed Police, challenged the same before this court through SWP No.632/92 which was allowed and the order impugned therein quashed with liberty to respondent/department to place him under suspension and conduct an enquiry into his un-authorized absence, if so, intended within six months from receipt of the order.

(2.) After disposal of his writ petition as such, an enquiry was initiated against him with framing of charge sheet on 29.12.97 which culminated into enquiry officer's final order No. 119/89 dated 11.02.1989 whereunder he was reinstated and the period intervening between his previous termination and the reinstatement i.e. from 01.08.1990 to 10.09.1997 treated as "diesnon" While accepting reinstatement, the petitioner felling aggrieved by the treatment of intervening period aforesaid as diesnon which is under challenge in this writ petition on the grounds, that the enquiry officer while ordering as such, acted arbitrarily and without jurisdiction and also that factual and legal merit of his case was not duly considered by the enquiry officer.

(3.) In their reply affidavit the respondents while taking certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy is available by way of appeal, the respondents have also maintained that the impugned part of the order was passed by the enquiry officer in strict conformity with the rules governing the matter, and that he was within his powers to issue directions regarding treatment of intervening period the way he did etc; and also that in view of his perpetual mis-conduct, and mis-presentation of circumstances in the matter, the petitioner did not deserve anything better.