SHAMSHER ALAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is stated to have remained absent unauthorizedly from duty w.e.f. 20th of Feb98 upto 17th of April99. As a consequence of this alleged unauthorized absence, a notice was issued to him to resume his duty within 15 days. The said notice is said to have published in a daily newspaper namely "Sach". A notice in this regard is also said to have been served upon the petitioner through SHO, Thannamandi, Rajouri. On the failure of the petitioner to respond to these notices and joining his duty, a departmental enquiry came to be initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer after holding the said enquiry recommended that the petitioner may be removed from service for remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly. On receipt of the said enquiry report, the respondent No. 4 passed the order impugned dt. 25th of June99, discharging, the petitioner from service. It is this order which is being challenged in the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was served upon the petitioner by the respondent authorities and the enquiry has been conducted exparte. It is stated that after the report of the Enquiry Officer was received by the Disciplinary authority, a show cause notice was required to be served upon the petitioner under Article 311(2) of the Constitution which is still applicable to the State of J&K. It is thus stated that the order having been passed at the back of the petitioner without affording him proper opportunity of hearing is an order not in accordance with the law and is violative of principles of natural justice.

(3.) ON the other hand, the case of respondents is that petitioner is a habitual absentee and has remained absent from duty on earlier occasions also. It is stated that the petitioner has earned displeasure of the authorities concerned from time to time. The respondents have also produced the record to show that the petitioner has not proved himself to be a disciplined member of the force.