GH MOHD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in Igo Phey Division, Leh (Ladakh) Public Works Department He left for Bombay on 12 -9 -1990 for undergoing treatment, since he was suffering from Tuberculosis. He informed his officers that he would be dispatching leave application afterwards. Meanwhile, respondents conducted physical verification of Divisional Stores which included those which were under the charge of petitioner Committee appointed by the Department to look into the store shortages submitted report pointing out shortages in the stores. Petitioner was arrested by the Police at Bombay and brought to Leh, later released on bail by the Judicial Magistrate. On release, he reported for duty on 28 -7 -1995, but was not allowed to join and was informed by communication dated 29 -7 -1995 that he could not be permitted to join, since he was absconding for the past three years and had failed to resume duty despite repeated notices. Ultimately, a notice was published in Government Gazette on 22 -11 -1990 informing him to resume duty within 15 days from the publication thereof, otherwise his services would stand terminated in terms of Article 128 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulation.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that at no stage, he received any communication from the respondents till 1994 to resume duty. Of course, he received letter dated 12 -8 -1995 which he replied and explained the position. But he was prevented from joining duty under Article 128 of Jammu and Kashmir CSR which, as a matter of fact, did not empower them to prevent him from doing so At the most, they could proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure established by law and they failed to do so, Apart from facts stated hereinabove respondents submit that physical verification of the stores under the charge of petitioner disclosed huge bungling and misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs. 23 92 234.78 and sensing action, he left the post of his own and remained absconded for five years till he was arrested by the police at Bombay and brought to Leh to face action. Notice published in Government Gazette dated 22 -11 -1990 gave him clear message to resume duty within the stipulated time, otherwise his services would be terminated without requirement of passing any other formal order

(3.) PETITION has been dismissed by the Single Judge, hence this Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order In the opinion of the Single Judge, petitioner was not entitled to claim inquiry into the matter before termination of his services, as he abandoned his post of his own without permission or authorisation under the Rules and stayed away from duty for five years or more, therefore, there was no logic in the claim for inquiry under J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, No inquiry is required to be held where it is impracticable to do so in circumstances brought about by the employee, who has surrendered his employment intentionally throwing to winds all canons of service. Learned Judge also said that;