GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in this petition, prays for the following relief:-

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner while serving as Mechanic in Malaria Section in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kathua applied for and was granted leave w.e.f. 01.08.1995 to 29.10.1995 for a period of 90 days by the respondent No.3. The petitioner was also granted permission to go abroad (USA) to see his relative vide Administrative Department's Order No.MD (NG)/116/94 dated 26.09.1994 for a period of three months with a rider that he would not seek any employment there. The petitioner availed of the leave but did not report back on duty on the expiry of sanctioned leave and, thus, remained unauthorisedly absent till 07.03.2000. He, however, reported for duty on 08.03.2000, but was not allowed to join. The concerned authority took up the matter with the Administrative Department and in response the Administrative Department vide its letter dated 11.01.2001 wrote to the respondent No.2 that the proposal sent by him had not been agreed to. The respondent No.2 was further advised to take further necessary action after completing all the formalities as required under rules for proceeding against the petitioner for his remaining unauthorisedly absence from the duties. The petitioner felt aggrieved of the aforesaid communication of the Administrative Department and assailed the same in SWP No.1145/2001. The matter remained subjudice in the Court till the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 004.2008. This Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondent No.2 to take a decision in the light of order dated 11.01.2001 issued by the Administrative Department within a period of two months. It was also provided that after the requisite decision is taken, the same would be communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was also held entitled to an opportunity of being heard and leading evidence in defence in case the respondent No.2 choses to hold an inquiry. The operative portion of the judgment dated 004.2008 passed in SWP No.1145/2001 is for facility of reference reproduced hereunder:-

(3.) It is further seen that pursuant to the judgment the respondent No.2 initiated an inquiry and constituted an Inquiry Committee for the purpose of holding the inquiry. The Committee submitted its report on 24.02009 to the respondent No.2. The Inquiry Committee after going through the record and the statement observed as under :-