AB. RASHID SHEIKH Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Petitioner Abdul Rashid Sheikh is working as Senior Assistant in the Sate Forest Department. Vide order No. 266 of 2005 dated 17.8.2005, he was posted in the office of (Head Quarter) Project Coordinator, North Jehlum Vide Order No. 348 of 2006 dated 17.10.2006, he was posted at North Jehlum Project, Baramulla in place of one Mohammad Shafi Khan, who was posted as Senior Assistant Project Coordinator, North Jehlum Office.

(3.) Vide Order No. 1 of 2007-08 dated 20.11.2007, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Project Officer, ERDC North Jehlum-1 Baramulla on the ground of non-compliance of the orders and an enquiry was initiated against him in which charge sheet was also framed. The petitioner replied the charges vide reply dated 8.3.2008. The petitioner was attached in the office of CF, Srinagar circle vide order No. 58 of 2008 dated 27.2.2008. The order further provided that CCF. Kashmir shall propose the name of Senior Assistant for his posting in the North Jehlum Project, Baramulla. Vide Order No. 2 of 2007-08 dated 12.3.2008, the petitioner was reinstated with immediate effect pending final outcome of the enquiry and was retrieved from Baramulla but vide Order No. 239 of 2008 dated 29.9.2008 he was again transferred and attached in the office of CCF, Kashmir till further orders. In his place one Mohammad Maqbool, Senior Assistant, CCFs office, Kashmir-respondent No.6 was transferred and posted to Sindh Forest Division. Ganderbal. The petitioner is aggrieved of the same. He slates that the inquiry initiated against him vide order dated 20.11.2007 is not in accordance with the rules, as the Project Officer had no competence to place the petitioner under suspension and direct an inquiry against him. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 29.9.2008 on the ground that the attachment of the petitioner in the office of CCF, Kashmir is not in accordance with the law. He states that the respondents have attached him prematurely in the office of respondent No.3 and there is no law which provides for attaching an employee in any office without giving him work commensurate of the status.