KHAIR DIN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The appellant Khair Din, who appeals to this Court by this Letters Patent Appeal, against the judgment of the learned Single Judge Dated 5.2.1993, was working as a follower in the Police Training College, Udhampur, since his enrolment on 22.9.1977 vide Order Book No. 401. On 30,4.1988 he proceeded on leave for one month and as he was taken ill be could not resume his duties on the scheduled date 30.5.1988, after the expiry of one months leave. He informed the authorities telegraphically about his confinement to bed vide telegrams dated 29.6.1988 and 11.8.1988, which fact finds mention in the order of respondent No. 3 dated 6.12.1991. As the appellant could not resume his duties on the expiry of the sanctioned leave, therefore, his services were summararily terminated by the respondent No 2. vide his order No. 1024 of 1988 dt.22.12.1988.

(2.) THE appellant preferred a writ petition in this Court for quashment of the aforesaid order dt.22.12.1988 and challenged its validity on various grounds, including the competence of respondent No 2. to pass the discharge order and also on the basis of principles of natural justice that the appellant was not provided sufficient opportunity to defend his case and the respondents had failed to issue any show cause notice before passing of such discharge order.

(3.) THE said writ petitionâ„¢ of the appellant, being SWP No. 558 of 1991, was allowed to be withdrawn by him with a liberty to make an appropriate representation to the respondent No. 2, i.e. Principal Police Training College, Udhampur, for vacation of the said order of discharge passed against him. Accordingly, the appellant filed a representation before the respondent No. 2 stating the facts which prevented the appellant to join his duty after the expiry of his earned leave. The said representation of the appellant was again summararily disposed of by the respondent no 2 and he did not pay any heed to the circumstances raised and proved by the appellant, which prevented him to join the duty after his sanctioned leave was over. The said authority, according to the appellant, did not take note of the four commendation certificates to have been issued by the authorities for his excellent services rendered by him in the Department during his service career of II years. The authorities failed to take any lenient view and instead in an undue haste summararily discharged the appellant from service and subsequently dismissed his representation as well.