FAROOQ AHMAD MATOO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition order No. 125 of 1989 dated 18.1.1989 (annexure P2) is impugned.

(2.) PETITIONER Senior grade constable of State Armed Police left his Btn on 28.8.84. As per the petitioner authorisedly on leave, as per the respondents unauthorisedly without leave. The petitioner was discharged from the police force w.e.f 28.8.84 under order dt. 30.1.85 of competent authority. On the representation of the petitioner, denevo enquiry was held and the petitioner was taken back in police force vide order dt. 18.1.89 (annexure P2) on the recommendation of the enquiry officer (annexure P1). In the order of reinstating the petitioner back in service, it is provided that the period of absence (discharge) w.e.f 28.8.84 to 18.1.89 (four years four months and twenty one day) has to be treated as diesnon. This part of the order of reinstatement dt. 18.1.89 is challenged on the ground that once the petitioner was taken back and reinducted in the Police force, the period from 28.8.84 to 18.1.89 during which petitioner stood discharged has not been treated on duty. The recommendation of the enquiry officer recommending the treatment of the period as leave of whatsoever kind was due has not been accepted. This has vitiated the orders of competent authority of treating the period as diesnon. The petitioner was kept out of service for no fault of his therefore, he should have been treated on duty for the period and paid back wages for the whole period.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.6 has filed reply on behalf of the respondents. It is alleged that the petitioner absented on 28.8.84 and thereafter he was discharged. On his representation denovo enquiry was held and he was reinstated as prayed in the petition. It is further averred that on enquiry, it was found that though the petitioner had no sufficient cause for re -induction in the police force but a lenient view was taken and he was reinducted in the force. The petitioner was found on unauthorised absence from 28.8.84. He had not taken any permission for remaining off duty. He had not even obtained station leave permission. As a member of disciplined force, such acts and omissions cannot be viewed, but with seriousness and dis -approval. The reason for remaining absent for the whole period as put forth by the petitioner was not substantiated before the competent authority. The petition suffers from in -ordinate delay, in so far, as after eight years the petitioner has approached the court against the order. Besides the petitioner had alternate remedy available which he did not avail. Both these circumstances have to be taken into consideration. Petitioner is disabled to seek pay for the period from 28.8.84 to 18.1.89, during which period the petitioner did not at all work and rendered no duties. He cannot be paid for no work. The illness of a family member of the petitioner, as contended by him, cannot be a ground for petitioner to remain absent unauthorisedly and commit indiscipline. The impugned order is neither arbitrary nor illegal. The order is covered by J&K Police rules, and the petition merits to be dismissed.