LAWS(J&K)-2015-11-45

MOHAMMAD SHAFI KHAN Vs. STATE AND ORS.

Decided On November 04, 2015
Mohammad Shafi Khan Appellant
V/S
State And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is pressing only grant of relief no. (a) and in view of the circumstances of the case, he does not press any other reliefs sought for in the writ petition. His statement is taken on record.

(2.) The facts as emerge from the counter affidavit filed by the then Director, State Motor Garages, reveal that the petitioner was appointed as Solderer in the State Motor Garages Department on 29th Nov., 1965. He unauthorisedly absented from service and was placed under suspension on 22nd Nov., 1969. It is further pleaded in the counter affidavit that the petitioner subsequently resigned from the Government service and claimed all past service benefits like G.P. Fund etc in the year 1979. It is further pleaded in the aforesaid affidavit that after long period of 23 years, petitioner instituted a civil original suit in the court of City Munsiff, Srinagar in the month of June, 1993. The suit was dismissed and against the decree and judgment initially passed by the City Munsiff and thereafter by the Sub-Judge (CJM), Srinagar, the appeal was filed which was allowed by the appellate court. It was declared by the appellate court that the petitioner had not resigned from service and no termination order has been proved, so there is no requirement of grant of relief for reinstatement. It is also pleaded in the aforesaid affidavit that the petitioner thereafter was served with charge sheet dated 6th Sept., 2005 and he was asked to explain his position about his unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. April 1969 to 11th June, 1993 (more than 24 years). Enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry.

(3.) Petitioner retired on superannuation from the service in the month of Nov., 2000. Petitioner filed SWP. No. 444/2006, which was decided by the Court vide its Judgment dated 5th Nov., 2008. The Court, in the aforesaid Judgment, after dealing with the issues raised by the parties, disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:-