SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(J&K) 108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
V.K. Jhanji, J.
Gorakh Nath - Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 1388/2000
Decided On : 19 April, 2004

Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: K.K. Pangotra
Advocate For Respondent: Ravinder Gupta

Headnote:Dismissal from service:

       Petitioner dismissed from service on account of absence form duty - The Court however held that

       the petitioner had served twenty two and half year and during the long period there was no complaint from any quarter regarding his behavior, conduct, performance or integrity, the omission to consider the unblemished service record of the petitioner is sufficient to record the conclusion that the punishment is vitiated due to non application of mind. The effect of imposing punishment has effect of depriving the petitioner of pension and other benefits which is wholly arbitrary and as such shocks conscience of the Court. Order of dismissal quashed.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, challenge is to order No. Estt/56 BN/DISC/94/7472-82 dated 9.6.1994, passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and period of absence with effect from 1.3.1994 has been ordered to be treated as dias non.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that order dismissing him form service has been passed without any enquiry. In precise, his case is that dismissal order is violative to the Service Rules; C. C. S. Pension Rules; Laws and Bye-Laws governing his service besides being illegal, arbitrary, against all canons of fair play and natural justice and that by virtue of the said order unblemished service record of the petitioner has been set at naught.

3. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the petitioner was given several opportunities to join his duty by sending him numerous registered letters but he never joined and, as such, he was dismissed from service after conducting a court of enquiry and issuing a show cause notice.

4. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, the facts in brief may be noticed.

5. Petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the Border Security Force on 1.7.1971 and in February 1988, he was selected for posting on deputation in the Ministry of External Affairs in which capacity he served in the Indian Embassy at Abu Dhabi as Security Guard till 11th July, 1993. Thereafter, petitioner was repatriated to the Head Quarters, I.G, B. S. F., Jammu. He was also sanctioned thirty days leave by the Ministry of External Affairs. The case of the petitioner is that after availing thirty days leave, which expired on 10.8.1993, he could not join his duty at Jammu due to serious sickness as he was suffering from Infective Hepatitis. According to the petitioner, he remained under treatment with effect from 2.9.1993 to 17.12.1993 at home and after recovery form the illness, he reported to the Headquarters, I.G, B.S.F., Jammu, on 21.12.1993, and submitted an application alongwith medical certificate for joining duty and requested to regularize the overstay period by granting half pay leave which he was entitled to under rules. Petitioner also made another application on the same date seeking voluntary retirement on compassionate grounds. But no action as required under Rule 48 of C.C.S Pension Rules was taken on the said application. Further, according to the petitioner, instead of accepting his application for voluntary retirement, he received letter dated 2.2.1994 in which he was asked to report for duty by or before 10th February, 1994 and only on his joining, request for leave would be considered. In response to the said letter petitioner reported for duty on 11.2.1994 and submitted an application again requesting for voluntary retirement and for depositing three months salary in lieu of notice for retirement. Instead of accepting his prayer, the petitioner was transferred to 56BN., B.S.F. Further according to the petitioner, being sick he was not in a condition to serve any more and so he did not join at the new place of posting as referred to above. Petitioner, thereafter, made repeated requests for voluntary retirement but, instead of accepting his prayer, he has been dismissed form service. It is stated that he had put in more than twenty two years unblemished service to the entire satisfaction of his superiors and had become entitled to all the retrial benefits inclusive of pay with effect form 11.07.1993 and all other benefits accruing form the service, but because of the dismissal order, he has been deprived of all the retrial benefits.

6. Upon notice of the writ petition, respondents have filed counter affidavit, stating therein that on his repatriation from deputation, the petitioner was posted to 56 BN BSF, vide Ftr. HQ BSF, Jammu, Order No. D-14/Estt-II/93/91-96 dated 4.1.1994, when the unit was depl





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top