AHMAD HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case speaks of clear apathy on the part of the respondents and also smacks of arbitrariness, which has been exercised and perpetuated on the person of the petitioner by the respondents without following due course of law.

(2.) THE facts in brief which have given rise to the present petition are that the petitioner who was working as Supervisor -Cum -SDC since 1981 in I go Phey Irrigation Division 1st. Leh, has proceeded on 15 days leave initially with effect from 1 -12 -1993 because it is alleged that he was suffering from kidney trouble and other ailments. He went to Srinagar for treatment where he was advised by the doctors to take complete bed rest as he was suffering from Sciatica and acute nephritis. The petitioner asked for extension of his leave, but the respondents were so much up their sleeves that they did not extend the leave of the petitioner so much so that he was constrained to move an application for leave to the Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Jammu under registered cover, of this copy has been placed on the record. It is also submitted that the petitioner moved number of applications to his immediate officers, namely respondents 4 and 5, but the respondents concealed this fact and proceeded against the petitioner without his knowledge and the termination order is alleged to have been issued by respondent No.3 i.e. Superintending Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Srinagar, but the copy of the order which has been annexed with the petition is that of order purported to have been issued by Executive Engineer, I go Phey Irrigation Division, Leh on 13 -9 -1994.

(3.) IT is submitted in the petition that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order where he after recovery from the ailment/disease reported for duty. He appeared before the authorities and filed his joining report on 2 -5 -1994. His joining report was not entertained so much so that even he was not conveyed the reasons for not entertaining his joining report, which constrained the petitioner to submit his joining report before the respondent No. 3 who forwarded the same to respondent No.4 who in turn again forwarded it to respondent No.5 and on that date also, respondent No.4 did not convey to the petitioner that he stands already terminated. On the other hand, petitioner seems to have been tossed over and finally when he came to know about the termination order, he put challenge to the same by way of this writ petition.