SUBASH CHANDER Vs. STATE
LAWS(J&K)-1993-11-10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on November 18,1993

SUBASH CHANDER Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BY medium of this writ petition, the order the respondent No: 4 removing the petitioner from service, is challenged on various grounds:
(2.)THE petitioner was appointed as "Follower" (water carrier) on 10.10.1991 in the Police department, and was posted at J&K Armed Police Force IX Bn. Zewan Srinagar. He belongs to a village in Tehsil of Akhnoor (Jammu) and came to his home after getting his leave properly sanctioned from 18th March to 22nd. March 1993. He could not report back on duty at the expiry of leave allegedly on the ground that the road from Jammu to Srinagar was blocked due to landslides. He reported at Police Station Akhnoor and on entry came to be made in the Roznamcha there on 23.3.1993. Allegedly, he fell ill thereafter and was under the treatment of a doctor, certificates where of he has annexed as a proof. Last of all, he went to Zewan to attend his duty, where he came to know that he stood dismissed from service on 8.5.1993 under Article 128 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations.
(3.)IT is stated in the writ petition that due to road blockade, the petitioner could not report back on duty after the expiry of his sanctioned leave, and as a proof thereof, he has annexed a copy of the entry of Roznamcba of Police Station Akhnoor dated: 23.3.1993 with the petition. Thereafter, he has allegedly sent telegrams and a registered letter to respondent No: 4 seeking extension of leave on medical grounds, and in this behalf, he has annexed copies of the said documents with the petition. It is emphatically asserted in the petition that the petitioner has not remained absent from duty without any justifiable cause, and that without following the procedure as established by law, He has been dismissed from service by respondent No: 4 in pursuance of the order impugned therein.
In the counter filed by respondent No: 4, it is admitted that leave was sanctioned in favor of the petitioner from 18th March to 23rd. of March. It is, however, denied that any telegram or application was received from the petitioner for extension of his leave. It is further stated that the petitioner remained absent unauthorized for 100 days though he was still a probationer and that a notice too was issued to him to resume his duty. It is admitted that the petitioner was removed from service after taking recourse to Article 128 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.