AHMAD SHEIKH Vs. GH HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for the issue of an appropriate writ in respect of an order of dismissal No. 829 dated the 8th May 1956 passed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner. An extract of that order may be reproduced here. So after taking due cognizance of all the facts I have come to the firm conviction that the retention of this man is not only dangerously troublesome but also detrimental to the Government interests as a whole. He is hereby discharged and dismissed from the service and is being black -listed to incapacitate him from any future Govt. service in default of his gross misconduct and hardened criminal tendencies Sd/ - D. F. O. Kishtwar

(2.) THE petitioner, Ahmad Sheikh, was employed as a Chowkidar in the Forest Bungalow at Kishtwar and according to him he was in the permanent service of the State for the last ten years. He was suspended by respondent No. 1 on the 17th January 1956 and was asked to submit his written reply in regard to some charges which the, petitioner did on the 23rd January 1956. Then the respondent No. 1 by his order dated the 5th April 1956 sent a list of the charges to the petitioner by registered post which was received by him on the 26th April 1956 and he was asked to submit his reply within a week. The charges were contained on eight closely written papers and it was not possible for the petitioner to send a detailed reply to the charges within the specified time. The petitioner on the 3rd May 1956 submitted an application to the respondent requesting him to grant the petitioner at least two weeks time for submitting his reply. The respondent sent a notice to the petitioner that an explanation on the charges must be submitted by 12 oclock on the 4th May failing which it would be presumed that the petitioner had no explanation to offer and that the case would be decided according to law. This notice was received by the petitioner at 5 p.m. on the 3rd May 1956 and the petitioner made an endorsement on that notice to the effect that he had already made an application for extension of time. On the 8th May the above order of dismissal was passed by the respondent which the petitioner submits was illegal, mala fide and ultra vires.

(3.) THE Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has filed objections and his preliminary objections are: that as the petitioner held a temporary post on a year to year basis the petition was not maintainable; that since an alternate adequate remedy by way of appeal had not been pursued and had been allowed to become time barred the petition cannot be entertained and lastly that the order of dismissal cannot be questioned by a writ of Mandamus and the petitioner cannot be ordered to be reinstated. It is admitted that the petitioner had asked for extension of time for submitting his explanation, which was not allowed as the request was, according to respondent No. 1, unreasonable.