SUDERSHAN KUMAR ABROL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER prays for quashing of impugned order dated 4 3. 1978 whereby period of suspension is treated as on leave of whatever kind is due to the petitioner. The said order is followed by another order giving effect to it.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition lie in brief compass Petitioner was placed under suspension on the basis of complaint on 19 -12 -1973 He was ordered to be reinstated by an order dated 4 -3 -1978 but a direction in the said order which is impugned, says that period of his suspension shall be treated as leave of whatever kind was due to him. Period of suspension is more than four years and leave for that much of period was not due to him. Therefore, much part of the period of suspension would be without pay which would be punishment in terms of the rules applicapable to the petitioner. In 1975 Govt. admitted in its order dated 31 -10 -1975 that the period of suspension has been prolonged for reasons not directly attributable to the petitioner. After having been reinstated petitioner seems to have approached the Director Health Services with the request that his period of suspension was prolonged for no fault of his and he was reinstated with the direction that his period of suspension be treated as on leave whatever kind was due to him. It being bad and contrary to Govt. Orders and rules, he as a made sure of protest proceeded on leave till the order regarding has period of suspension was modified. He was informed by the Director Health Services that the order cannot be reviewed, far case he continues to remain on leave till end of 1978, he should consider himself discharged from service. In 1979 he seems to have made a representation was replied on 7 -7 -1979. He was told that whatever was possible under rules has been done, If he has no intention to join the service, department was free to initiate action for his discharge from service

(3.) IN the reply affidavit, it is admitted that on enquiry it was found by the enquiry officer that the charge leveled against the petitioner was not substantiated by any evidence, but the Doctor having taken a lady officer on a tour outside for the night was said to be suspicious but the suspicion is not spelt out Respondents have placed the complaint of smt. Kamla Devi of FP Centre against the petitioner on record as also the enquiry report of Sushma Chowdhry. In the concluding portion of the report, Miss Sushma Chowdhary has stated as under: - I found that the whole incident is more a feel psychoses on part of ANM She should have considered all the factors when she agreed to accompany the doctor on an official tour at about 8 P. M. If she felt that the doctor had bad motives she had every opportunity to refuse to go with the doctor and father [Sic] approach the local vaid at Durang. Besides there is nothing in the conduct of the doctor to show that he really misbehaved with the said ANM. In view of those facts I do not find that he charges so leveled against the said doctor S. K. Abrol are substantiated"