AHMAD KHAN NAZIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner is that he was working as Deputy Director (Central) in the department of Gardens, Parks and Floriculture. He applied for ten days leave from 10th of December 1981 with permission to travel abroad. Leave was sanctioned in this favour. The petitioner could not resume his duties and accordingly applied for extension of leave from time to time. He was not conveyed the face of the extension of leave. When the petitioner returned to Srinagar, he was informed that he stands terminated vide order of respondent No.2 dated 18.9.1987, then this order was confirmed by the Government vide its order No.: HP (GPF) of 1987 dated 16.10.1987. The petitioner has alleged that the impugned orders for terminating his service are un -Constitutional and void, so he filed this writ petition bearing SWP NO. 1084/88 seeking the indulgence of this court under Article 226 for issuance of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the termination order dated 18.9.1987 and subsequent order passed by the government dated 16.10.1987 confirming the first order. Secondly he has sought the relief for issuance of writ of Mandamus with direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) CASE has been admitted for hearing on 10.8.1988 and the otherside was noticed. Despite various opportunities given to the respondents, no counter was filed. On 6.5.1996 four weeks time was granted to the respondents for filing the counter, which was not availed of. After availing sufficient opportunities for filing the counter, it was directed to process the case for hearing, however, no counter has been filed in this case. But now the record has been produced after final arguments were concluded in the case. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the admitted position of the case is that the services of the petitioner has been terminated by respondent No. 2, who was Director, Gardens, Parks and Floriculture, J&K, he was not the appointing authority of the petitioner who too was Deputy Director himself. Appointing authority of the petitioner was the Govt. (SIC) as the termination order is ab -initio order and cannot be cured by subsequently confirming it by the appointing authority. Secondly, it is an admitted position that the services of the petitioner have been terminated under Article 128 of J&K Civil Service Regulations without framing the charge sheet, without conducting any enquiry and without properly serving the notice to the petitioner.