Decided on April 29,1999

Mohd Shafi Dar Appellant
STATE OF JANDK Respondents


- (1.) INDULGENCE of this court has been sought by the petitioner through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing suspension order No.18 -Edu of 1996 dated
(2.) 1.1996 to the extent It pertains to the petitioner; and for mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 2.1.1996 to 31.10.1996 as on duty and reckon the same for purposes of pensionary benefits; for commanding the same respondents to release the pay alongwith other consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner from 2nd January, 1996 to 31st October 1996. Other reliefs claimed are for the issuance of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to process the case of the petitioner for post -pensionary benefits and to finalise the pension case of the petitioner in the shortest possible time. 2. The facts from which this petition emanates are that the petitioner was working as Zonal Education Officer to which status he was raised in 1995. He was posted as Zonal Education Officer, Bidder when, suddenly, on some unknown allegations, he alongwith some other persons, was placed under suspension on 2.1.1996. He continued to be under suspension till he retired on 31.10.1996. No enquiry has been conducted. No charge sheet has been framed against him: despite his representations.
(3.) RESPONDENTS were noticed. Shri Qadiri appears for respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Naik for respondent No.3. Writ petition was filed on 29th July, 1997. Respondents despite repeated directions have failed to file the reply -affidavit, so the case was ordered to be listed for hearing by another bench of this court. Till now the position is unchanged. No counter has been filed so far. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that the facts exhibited in the writ petition be treated as uncontroverted, because there is nothing on the record from the otherside in rebuttal thereto. He has argued that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition be granted against the respondents in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Qadiri has contended that even if the enquiry has not been started, or the charge sheet has not been framed against the petitioner so far, the writ petitioner cannot claim exoneration on this fact alone. He submits that he has no objection if some more time is given to the respondents to conduct the enquiry, failing which appropriate order be passed.;

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