KEWAL KRISHAN GANDOTRA Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1986-10-12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 16,1986

Kewal Krishan Gandotra Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) KEWAL Krishan Gandotra, petitioner, has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with S. 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing Govt. order No. FK -III/77(E) dated 12 -4 -1978 discharging him from service and further for directing the respondents to treat him in service without interruption and grant him all such benefits to which he would have been entitled. Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Asstt. in the department of Food and Supplies, Jammu in Oct. 1971. His case is that the Dy. Commissioner, Food and Supplies, respondent No. 2 herein, started having enimity with him considering that he was responsible for certain complaints against him in the Anti -Corruption agency and elsewhere. He was called by this respondent and was asked to withdraw all those complaints but he showed his helplessness as he was not responsible for the same. Respondent No. 2 being not satisfied with his explanation openly declared to spoil his career. S. Kulbir Singh, Secretary to Government Food and Supplies Department was a close friend of respondent No. 2 and he was prevailed upon by respondent No. 2 to take revenge from him. Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to him on 9 -8 -1977, for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him and he was also placed under suspension on 23 -8 -77. He was charge -sheeted by respondent No. 2 on 7 -10 -1 77 and after that he was transferred by respondent No. 3 to Leh vide order dated "6 -10 -1977 when he was still under suspension He filed writ petition No. 157 of 1977 in this Court and the Court observed that he would be entitled to the additional allowance as also other available benefits and his lien and promotion in the parent Department would be protected He filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 131 of 1978 in this Court which was dismissed in limini.
(2.) PETITIONERS further case is that while writ petition was pending in this court disciplinary inquiry was directed to be held by the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur who summoned him and he appeared and participated in the inquiry. He in compliance with the order of respondent No. 3 reported to him with the request that the passage to Leh was blocked and it was not possible for him to reach there during that season and as such he be retained at Jammu, especially when inquiry against him was being held at Udhampur. Respondent No. 3 did not issue any direction or order to him. He then filed an application before the Director Food and Supplies, Jammu submitting that road to Leh was blocked due to snow and there was no conveyance available and as such. he be attached at Jammu office till the road opens. He reported for joining the office on 21 -1 -1978. He was entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension which was not paid to him. Respondents 2 and 3, however, directed him to proceed to Leh by air even though the road was blocked. He apprised them of the position that there was no air service for Leh but they directed him to proceed by army aircraft, He approached the respondents for granting him advance T. A and also subsistence allowance but his request was declined. After that respondent No. 3 in conspiracy with respondent No. 2 served a letter upon him leveling certain charges and requiring him to show cause why the proposed punishment of termination from service in defiance of orders be not inflicted upon him. He submitted reply that he was prepared to go to Leh but he should be paid advance T. A. after that respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order on behalf of respondent No. 1, State of J&K, discharging him from service. His termination from service was motivated by malafides and without holding any inquiry.
(3.) THE respondents in their counter while denying the allegation of enmity conceived by respondent No.2 against the petitioner have further averred that a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner due to his indiscipline official behavior and after considering his reply he was placed under suspension. It is further pleaded by the respondents that in the interest of administration petitioner was transferred from Jammu to Leh along with his post while he was under suspension. This order of transfer was challenged by the petitioner in writ petition No. 157 of 1977 and the order was held to be correctly passed. The inquiry against the petitioner was directed to be conducted by the Dy. Commissioner Udhampur in view of the fact that the petitioner had alleged malice and mala fide attitude against respondent No.2 and said inquiry was later on dropped in view of the fact that the petitioner stood discharged from service vide Govt. Order dated 12 -4 -1978 - The representation of the petitioner for providing air lift was considered and arrangement for his airlift to Leh were made but the petitioner did not avail of this facility. The petitioner was directed to report to Development Commissioner, Leh immediately failing which he was liable for disciplinary action for non compliance of Government orders but the petitioner did not care to comply with the order and continued to stay unauthorisidely at Jammu, whereupon a show cause notice dated 20 -3 -1978 was served upon him who submitted his explanation which was considered by respondent No .3 and same being found unsatisfactory, orders for discharge of the petitioner were issued. The petitioner was served a show -cause notice for noncompliance of the orders pertaining to his transfer to Leh This action on his part came within the ambit of Art. 128 of the C.S.R. The reply submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and it was found that a case of clear defiance of Govt. order stood established against him. The petitioner in his rejoinder has submitted that ill will of respondent No.2 towards him was established from the facts of the case. He was placed under suspension and attached with District Supplies Officer, Jammu but not satisfied with this respondent No.2 made all endeavour to get rid of him. At the instance of respondent No 2 he was transferred along with past to Leh which order was in violation of the provisions of SRO 588 of 1969.;


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