STATE OF J&K Vs. C N MALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition was preferred by the respondent herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash order dated June 16, 1987 terminating the services of the petitioner and also for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate him, and also for the consequential reliefs. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on April 30, 1998. The learned Single Judge though set aside the order of termination, ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to get back wages from the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., from May 16, 1994 till the date of superannuation, the legality of which has been challenged before us by the State and its officers.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Assistant Surgeon. On October 31, 1970 he was posted in the SMHS Hospital, Srinagar. Later, the petitioner had occupied various posts in the Directorate of Health Services and ultimately was posted as Lecturer in Government Medical College, Srinagar. He was later promoted as Assistant Professor in Government Medical College, Srinagar vide Government Order dated March 13, 1981. Petitioner claimed that he was sent on deputation to Stainley Medical College, Madras for undergoing specialized training in Microvascular and Hand Surgery from January 1986. Thereafter, the petitioner proceeded on 30 days leave with effect from March 24, 1986. After the period of sanctioned leave got expired, the petitioner had to report back for duty. However, he did not join the duty. The State sent letters to the petitioner to join his duty and finally by notice dated July 16, 1987 asked him to show cause why his services should not be terminated as per Article 128 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. Later, he was served with order of termination dated June 16, 1987 stating that his services stood terminated in terms of Article 128 of the J&K CSR from the date of his unauthorized absence.

(3.) THE petitioned challenged the above -mentioned order on various grounds. It was pointed out that he had sent several applications for extension of leave for undergoing further training and seeking service in foreign country. These representations were not responded and his services were illegally terminated without conducting any enquiry or following the laid down procedure. The State and its officials had stated that the petitioner had abandoned his job and was not interested in joining his duty. He was trying to get job in foreign countries and was also otherwise gainfully employed. Further, it was also stated that several communications sent to the petitioner were not replied by him as he was not interested in joining his duty. Further, it was also stated though he was intimated about the termination of his services and the same was also published in Government Gazette no. XVIII dated July 13, 1987 as also in the Newspaper and the writ petition challenging the order of termination was filed only on May 16, 1994, that means, after lapse of nearly seven years from the date of termination and, hence, it was pointed out that the writ court could not have exercised its jurisdiction due to latches and delay on the part of the petitioner. Further, it was pointed out that if the judgment of the learned Single Judge is given effect, amount running to several lacks would have to be paid to the petitioners without turning out any work, which would be against public interest.