SHAMIM AHMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner calls into question order No. 666 of 1994 dated 2nd Nov. 1994 passed by respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder he has been discharged from service w.e.f. 7th Oct. 1994.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was appointed in J&K Armed Police in the year 1990 as constable. The further case of the petitioner is that in May 1994 he fell ill and remained confined to bed till 05th July 1994. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter he resumed his duties. As per claim of the petitioner a departmental enquiry was conducted against him for having remained unauthorizedly absent. The further case of the petitioner is that though the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules as neither charge sheet was served upon him nor he was granted opportunity of hearing, but the petitioner tendered explanation before the enquiry officer about his absence from duty, which explanation of the petitioner was accepted by the enquiry officer, who recommended that the period of absence to be treated as dies -non. The respondent No.3 however issued show cause notice to petitioner as to why he should not be discharged from service. Further case of the petitioner is that he again fell ill and remained confined to bed w.e.f 6th Sept. 1994 to 7th Nov. 1994 and it is during this period that the discharge order was passed.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of discharge interalia on the ground that language and expression used in the impugned discharge order are stigmatic in nature in as much as the petitioner has been dubbed to be a habitual absentee and absconder which renders the impugned discharge order bad in law.