ATTIEQ AHMED Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order No.231 of 2006 dated 28.06.2006 whereby respondent No.4 has quashed the order of respondent No.5 and upheld the order of respondent No.6, thus, removing the petitioner from service treating the period of unauthorized absence as leave without pay.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present case are that the petitioner joined police department on 02.05.1998 and rendered more than 6 years of service and thereafter, he met with a road traffic accident on 25.11.2003 due to which, he suffered from severe head injury and was admitted in GMC Jammu and discharged on 18.12.2003. C.T. Scan report shows as under:-

(3.) With regard to the accident, a challan under Sections 279/337/338 RPC had been produced in the Court of law and the same is pending adjudication. After discharge from the hospital, the petitioner joined on 18.12.2003. The petitioner suffered from fits and consequently fell unconscious and his life was saved by his colleagues and it became difficult for him to perform his duties. The petitioner thereafter went to Surankote and admitted on 03.12.2004 in GH Surankote and after 10 days' treatment, he was advised complete bed rest for 6 months. Thereafter, he resumed duties on 27.06.2005 after seeking permission to join his duties from respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 after permitting petitioner to resume his duties conducted an enquiry into the overstayal of leave and in the enquiry, the petitioner was not associated and respondent No.7 recorded the statement of witnesses at the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity to cross examine the witness. After enquiry, the petitioner was served charge-sheet and before petitioner could collect the relevant documents, respondent No.7 proceeded to record statement ex-parte and submitted his findings to respondent No.6 recommending that annual increment of the petitioner be stopped for a period of two years and his period of absence from 05.12.2004 to 27.06.2005 be treated as leave without pay on the principle of no work no pay. It is averred that respondent No.6 issued final show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner be not removed from service for repeated departmental action against the petitioner. Respondent No.6 had concurred with finding of respondent No.7 and disagreed with his recommendations. Respondent No.6 vide order dated 24.11.2005 removed the petitioner from service w.e.f.24.11.2005 treating the period of unauthorized absence to be treated as leave without pay. Respondent No.6 did not even take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner to show cause notice. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of removal from service approached respondent No.5 by way of statutory appeal. Respondent No.5 vide order dated 20.04.2006 quashed the order dated 24.11.2005 and ordered for de novo enquiry into the matter after giving the appellant an opportunity. Respondent No.4 suo-moto passed an order dated 28.06.2006 thereby quashing order dated 20.06.2006 and upheld the order dated 24.11.2005 and the petitioner, accordingly, was removed from service in terms of order dated 24.11.2005.