AIJAZ HASSAN BHAT Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By medium of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order bearing No. 686 of 2014 dated 19th of November, 2014, whereby he has been discharged from service by the respondent No.4, on the grounds, inter alia, that he was never given a chance of hearing while passing the impugned order; the order is violative of the rules of natural justice and the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner; no show cause notice was issued to him and no enquiry, whatsoever, was conducted against him in accordance with the rules; the order is based on extraneous considerations and the past conduct in the service of the petitioner. The petitioner has further pleaded that it is also not indicated anywhere as to when the enquiry was conducted which culminated into the order aforesaid nor has the record of the enquiry been made available to the petitioner, which fact makes it amply clear that the impugned order of discharge is not the outcome of any enquiry conducted in terms of the rules. The petitioner further pleads that he took ill and had to undergo medical treatment at various institutions to cure the disease with which he was suffering which had immobilized him for quite a long time as is brought to the fore from the prescriptions and the medical reports attached to the file as Annexure-D1. The petitioner knocked the doors of the respondents by filing a number of representations, but fate had it for him that these were never decided. In the premises, the petitioner has prayed that a 'Writ of Certiorari' for quashing the order bearing No. 686/2014 dated 19th of November, 2014, be issued or any other direction, which the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances of the case may be passed.

(2.) Counter Affidavit stands filed on behalf of respondent No.4 only, resisting and controverting the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner for maintaining the present writ petition. The petitioner has suppressed the material facts and has tried to mislead the Court. He has not approached the Court with clean hands, and is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. It is pleaded that the petitioner absented unauthorizedly w.e.f. 15th of October, 2013 and was, accordingly, marked absent. It has further been stated that the petitioner was repeatedly directed to resume his duties, which he failed and, finally, a final notice dated 27th of August, 2014, was served upon him which was published in a local Daily also, whereby he was directed to resume his duties, but he failed to do so, as a consequence of which, he was discharged from service vide the order impugned.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter.