GH MOHD DAR Vs. EDUCATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the capacity of Senior Assistant in the Education Department of J&K was placed under suspension on 7 -4 -1975 under the orders of Deputy Director, Planning and Colleges. This order was served on the petitioner on 11 -4 -1975. Thereafter the petitioner received the articles of charges which are contained in Annexure 2 and 2/A respectively. The charges were replied by the petitioner on 7 -6 -1975. The reply is contained in Annexure -3 to the petition. It is stated that no action was taken thereafter by the department and the petitioner finally made an application on 2,) -3 -1976 requesting that inquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner may be conducted forthwith and petitioner be relieved of the agony which he was undergoing due to prolonged suspension. No action was taken on this representation. The petitioner submitted a reminder on 2 -7 -1976 for expediting the inquiry. However on 3 -7 -19 6 petitioner is said to have been reinstated with the direction that the period for which he had repaired under suspension be treated leave of whatever kind was due to him. Petitioner challenges the order whereby his order of suspension has been treated as leave of whatever kind was due to him. It is contended by the petitioner that no inquiry was held against the petitioner nor was he found guilty of any charge, therefore, he could not be treated on leave of whatever kind was due to him, He was reinstated without any stigma, therefore, he could not be deprived of his salary because leave for prolonged period with pay was not due to him. By ordering the period of suspension to be treated as leave whatever kind was due to the petitioner is causing huge loss to him and the same is arbitrary and unjust. To this extent the condition in reinstatement order is challenged.

(2.) ONE Mr. Satya Bhusan, the then Education Commissioner has filed the reply affidavit. The contents of the petition to the extent of petitioners suspension and his subsequent reinstatement is admitted, However it is contended that petitioner made an application for reinstatement and a lenient view was taken in the view of his submission and he was reinstated and the period of suspension was treated on leave whatever kind was due to him. Petitioner is said to have filed review petition before the authorities about the period of the suspension which was dismissed. Petitioner is also said to have filed appeal before the competent authority which was al o rejected. The impugned order so far as it deals with the period of leave is termed as valid and legal.

(3.) THE copy of the application submitted by the petitioner is probably termed as petitioners admission of guilt to the charges framed against him and the respondents have based their contention on the said letter. Therefore it is necessary to examine the contents of the said letter and if it is admission of guilt then petitioner may not have any grievance but if it is not an admission of guilt, petitioner cannot be denied the relief. In his letter the petitioner had requested that he was under suspension from 10 -4 -1975 and he was under financial pressure therefore it was requested to have pity of his miserable condition and save him from further miseries. He had also requested that he may be excused if he was at fault in that event he would remain careful in future. This letter of the petitioner was conditional and cannot be said to be unconditional admission of guilt. The words "I may be excused if I am at fault" do cannot that petitioner wanted his fault to be inquired into and in that event he had sought apology. The petitioners fault" was to be inquired into by the respondents. Without doing into that question they have taken the petitioners letter as letter of admission of guilt and reinstated him by causing him financial loss,