AB HAMID FAZILI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , Professor of Pharmacology in Government Medical College, Srinagar proceeded on one years leave without allowances which was sanctioned in his favour vide Government Order No. 625 -HME of 1985 dated 20 -8 -1985. He availed of this leave from 9 -9 -1985 but failed to report on duty on the expiry of leave on 9 -9 -1986 and over stayed for two more years in Libya where he had taken up a foreign assignment. He subsequently returned and joined at Srinagar on 22 -7 -1988. He was allowed to do so by the Principal Government Medical College, Srinagar by an order dated 1 -9 -1988 read with Government order No. 972 -HME of 1988 dated 15 -l1 -1988. At this stage, he again applied for special leave without allowances upto 30th July, 1989 and without waiting for its sanction proceeded to Libya. While he was there State respondent put him on show cause notice on 15 -5 -1989 changing him with failure resume duties and for staying away un -authorisedly. He was asked to reply within twenty one days and was informed that his services will be terminated otherwise. He asserts that he replied to this notice and explained the circumstances in which he had sought extension of his special leave. According to him he was asked by the Principal to work under his junior one Dr. Vimla Dhar which had embarrassed him and turned him to Libya again. He also claims that he had informed the Competent Authority that he was willing to resume his duties if he was granted reasonable time to pack up at Libya. But while all this was on, State respondent passed order No. 666 -HME of 1989 dated 22 -8 -1989 terminating his services for unauthorised absence.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this petition to assail the action primarily on the ground that he was removed from service in disregard of the safeguards and guarantees provided under Section 126 of the State Constitution read with 33 of the J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1956. In this regard, it is submitted that he was neither served any charge sheet nor given any statement of allegations, not to speak of holding any enquiry against him or affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is also contended by him that since his request for extension in his special leave upto 30 -7 -1989 was all though under the consideration of the Government, he bonafide believed that his leave was sanctioned. As the respondents had failed to communicate the out come of his leave request and had not rejected it by any formal order, he was made to believe that all was well and that is why he failed to resume the duty. Petitioner supports all this by drawing analogy from identical cases where Doctors who had taken foreign assignments were allowed to rejoin. He also places reliance on a number of judgments of his court including 1990 KLJ 1992 SLJ 143 wherein the orders of termination of writ petitioners were quashed in similar circumstances.

(3.) PETITIONER has filed this petition somewhere in 1989 wherein respondents were put on notice around same time. At one stage, Mr. Mansotra Government Advocate represented them but later they seem to have gone un represented. They have not filed any reply to resist the petition. No one appeared for them today also. The averments made by the writ petitioner resultantly go un -rebutted and would have to be accepted on their face value.