KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. JAKFED AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the learned writ Court in SWP No. 1717/2015 titled "Krishan Kumar v. JAKFED and others" , whereby the writ Court has passed the following order:-

(2.) Learned Writ Court Order dated 14.05.2018 has been challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that judgment dated 25.02.2015 passed by the learned writ Court in OWP No.40/2004, has attained the finality in law as neither writ petitioner nor the respondents side filed any LPA against the same; that order impugned dated 11.05.2015, which was subject matter of challenge before the writ Court, was issued by respondent No.2 after waiting for more than seventy five days, which is not understandable as to why they kept on waiting for so long when judgment dated 25.02.2015 was time constrained; that that orders impugned, subject matter of challenge before the learned writ Court, passed by respondent No.2 are arbitrary, capricious, with total non-application of mind, for extraneous reasons and with mala fide intentions, to mentally harass and frustrate the writ petitioner-appellant; that ordering inquiry after lapse of the prescribed period is only in violation of the court order and it also clearly divulges the pre-determined mindset of respondents to somehow terminate his services instead of implementing the orders issued by the Registrar Cooperative Societies dated 09.02.2002 and order issued by the J&K Special Tribunal dated 08.09.2003; that learned writ court has erroneously ignored an important aspect of the matter inasmuch as in terms of the mandate of order dated 25.02.2015, it was obligatory upon respondents to have implemented the order of the appellate authority dated 09.02.2002 upheld by revisional authority vide its order dated 08.09.2003 if they did not choose to initiate and complete fresh enquiry against the writ petitioner-appellant within a period of 90 days from the date of passing of the order by this Court; that learned Writ Court has erroneously dismissed the writ petition without according any consideration to the averments and grounds taken by the writ petitioner-appellant.

(3.) The facts in brief as projected in the writ petition are that writ petitioner-appellant, employee of JAKFED, was appointed by respondent No.2 on consolidated basis in the year 1988, however, after rendering more than seven years of service, he was ought to have been treated as regular employee of the said organization. It is contended that pursuant to Transfer Order No.Adm/JAK/92-93/939-44 dated 04.05.1993, writ petitioner-appellant was to join his new place of posting at Udhampur, but due to his ill health he could do so. In this regard, after submission of relevant medical record, suspension order was revoked and writ petitioner-appellant was re-instated vide order dated 19.08.1993. Writ petitioner-appellant received a show-cause notice dated 18.10.1994 but was allowed to resume his duties. He received his termination order dated 20.03.1993 on the pretext of absence from duty w.e.f. 17.03.1995 to 20.03.1995 whereas the writ petitioner-appellant claims that he was never absent from duty. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, J&K, Jammu, vide order dated 09.02.2002 set-aside the termination order of writ petitioner-appellant. Respondents aggrieved of order dated 09.02.2002 filed a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal, which was vide order dated 08.09.2003 dismissed. J&K Special Tribunal's order was challenged before this Court in writ petition (OWP No.40/2004). This Court vide order dated 25.02.2015 did interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. However, this Court directed that if writ petitioners in the writ petition choose to initiate inquiry against respondent No.3, the same shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three months from the date of passing of order. Notwithstanding the passing of order dated 25.02.2015 by this Court and elapsing of period of three months i.e. on 25.05.2015, the respondents instead of re-instating the writ petitioner, have issued show cause notice vide No.40/2004/493-98 dated 11.05.2015 whereby he has been asked to explain his position within a period of two days failing which administrative action permissible under law shall follow. The reply submitted by writ petitioner was rejected by respondent No.1 vide order dated 27.05.2015 and Sr. Manager Accounts was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold inquiry into the matter against the writ petitioner-appellant.