MOHAMMAD IQBAL LONE Vs. STATE OF JK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner is seeking a 'Writ of Certiorari' for quashing the order bearing No. 487 of 2010 dated 29th of May, 2010 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag/ respondent No.4 insofar as it relates to treating the period of his discharge w.e.f. 18th of June, 1998 to th of August, 2009 as 'Dies-non'. A 'Writ of Mandamus' is also sought by the petitioner in the name of the respondents commanding them to treat the period of his discharge w.e.f. 18th of June, 1998 to 4th of April, 2009 as on duty and pay him all the consequential benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he came to be appointed as a Constable in the respondent Department and was, subsequently, allotted belt No. 1046. It is stated that the petitioner has been discharging his duties in the respondent Department to the best satisfaction of his superiors, however, in the year 1998, the petitioner came to be discharged from service for the reason of absenting himself from duty for 68 days with effect from 29th of September, 1997 till 6th of December, 1997. Thereafter, as stated, the petitioner resumed his duties on 6th of December, 1997, wherafter an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in ex parte culminating in the issuance of order of discharge of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the order of discharge issued by the respondents through the medium of writ petition bearing SWP No. 858/1999 before this Court. In the said writ petition, this Court, in terms of judgment dated 12th of February, 2009, while allowing the same, not only quashed the order of discharge of the petitioner, but also gave liberty to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry in the matter in accordance with the rules governing the field and kept the absence from 18th of June, 1998 to 12th of February, 2009 subject to outcome of the said enquiry. The petitioner has proceeded to state that he was, thereafter, subjected to enquiry by the respondents and on competition of the said enquiry, the petitioner, while being exonerated from all the charges of carelessness and negligence, was reinstated in service. Thereafter, as stated, in terms of the order No. 487 of 2010 dated 29th of May, 2010 issued by the respondent No.4, a major punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner by stopping one annual increment and treating the period of his discharge w.e.f. 18th of June, 1998 till 4th of August, 2009 as 'Dies-non' on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. Faced with this situation, the petitioner contends that he filed a review petition before the respondents with respect to the issue of treating his period of discharge as 'Dies-non', however, the respondents, in terms of order bearing No. 722 of 2010 dated 14th of September, 2010 rejected the same as being devoid of any merit. It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner did not stop there and filed a series of representations before the respondents thereby requesting them to set aside the portion of the order impugned declaring the period of his discharge w.e.f. 18th of June, 1998 till 4th of August, 2009 as 'Dies-non', however, since all the requests of the petitioner fell in deaf ears and did not entail any response from the respondents, the petitioner, as stated, was constrained to file the instant writ petition.

(3.) Counter stands filed on behalf of the respondents resisting and controverting the averments made by the petitioner in his petition. It is stated that the petitioner proceeded on 03 days leave, but after expiry of the said leave period, the petitioner did not report back for duties and, instead, remained unauthorizedly absent from duty for 68 days for which a departmental enquiry was initiated resulting in issuance of order dated 18th of June, 1998 whereby the petitioner was discharged from service. It is further stated that the petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court through the medium of SWP No. 858/1999, wherein this Court quashed the order of discharge of the petitioner vide judgment dated 12th of February, 2009 and also gave liberty to the respondents to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with the rules governing the field. The respondents have proceeded to state that in compliance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 5th of May, 2011 and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner which came to be disposed of vide order dated 29th of May, 2010 whereby the annual increment of the petitioner was forfeited for a period of one year and the period of absence of the petitioner viz., from 29th of September, 1997 till 6th of December, 1997; from 28th of April, 1998 till 17th of June, 1998 and also the period of his discharge w.e.f. 18th of June, 1998 till 4th of August, 2009 was treated as 'Dies-non' on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. The respondents contend that since the petitioner remained away from the rolls of the Department w.e.f. 18th of June, 1998 till 4th of August, 2009, as such, he is not entitled to any pay or other perks ancillary to such a period for which he has never worked. In the end, the respondents have prayed that the petition of the petitioner be dismissed.