IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
Mohd. Afzal Sheikh - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondent
SWP No. 64/2003
Decided On : 19 November, 2009
Appointment Order - Government Service - J&K Forest (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991 - [Rules of 1991] - The court discussed the validity of the petitioner's appointment order and the requirement for conducting a fair enquiry before concluding that the appointment order was fake. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and ruled that the petitioner should be given the opportunity to defend himself before such a conclusion is reached.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to have been appointed as a Forest Guard based on a genuine appointment order, but the respondents alleged that the order was fake. The respondents stopped the petitioner's pay and attached him to a different office. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the actions taken against him and to be allowed to work and receive salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents did not conduct a fair enquiry or provide the petitioner with an opportunity to defend himself before concluding that the appointment order was fake. As a result, the court quashed the orders stopping the petitioner's salary and attached him to a different office, and directed the respondents to initiate action in accordance with the law and rules after conducting a proper enquiry.
Issues: Validity of the petitioner's appointment order, fair enquiry before concluding the order was fake, and the actions taken by the respondents without following the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for a fair enquiry and the principles of natural justice before concluding that an appointment order was fake. It ruled that the petitioner should be given the opportunity to defend himself before such a conclusion is reached.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition, quashed the orders stopping the petitioner's salary and attaching him to a different office, and directed the respondents to initiate action in accordance with the law and rules after conducting a proper enquiry. The petitioner was entitled to salary for the work done period in accordance with rules.
2. Petitioners service is governed by J&K Forest (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991(for short Rules of 1991). In terms of Rules of 1991 a Graduate, Forest Guard, is to be considered for being appointed by promotion to the post of Dy. Forester if he is having three years experience and consideration is to be accorded to a Matriculate, Forest Guard, having seven years experience and non-matriculate, Forest Guard, who is having ten years experience. Rules of 1991 also provide that at least 25% of the available vacancies shall be filled up amongst the meritorious candidates.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that when he entered in the department as Forest Guard he was matriculate and after joining his service he passed graduation in the year 1999 as a private candidate. The petitioner thus became eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Dy. Forester. The petitioner when he was posted as Forest Guard at Onagam, submitted an application to respondent No.5 requesting therein that he be promoted and appointed to the post of Dy. Forester. The application was forwarded to respondent No.4, who in turn sent the same to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 submitted the case of petitioner to respondent No.2. Thereafter it surfaced that petitioner has entered into service allegedly on a fake/fabricated appointment order. Respondent No.2 in sequel to this revelation requested respondent No.7 for registration of criminal case against the petitioner. Copy of the communication was also sent to respondent No.5 asking him stop the pay of the petitioner. Case FIR No.62/2002 u/s 420/468/471 RPC stands registered against the petitioner. Respondent No.5 stopped the pay of the petitioner and interms of Forest Order No. 46 of 2002-03 dated 29th Oct. 2002 petitioner was ordered to be attached to Range Office Khuihama. The petitioner acting on the order dated 29.10.2002 submitted a departure report on 12.11.2002 from Onagam and on same day submitted arrival report before respondent No.6. As per the claim of the petitioner thereafter he was not permitted to mark his attendance nor salary was paid to him. Petitioner approached the authorities including some of the respondents but his request fell on deaf ear.
4. Petitioner approached this court by filing writ petition in which he has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing letter bearing No. PCCF/NG/Estt/Fgd./1396-98 dated 30th Sept. 2002 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.7, and Forest Order No. 46 of 2002-03 dated 29.10.2022 issued by respondent No.5 as also FIR No. 62/2002. Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Forest Guard and pay him the salary and other benefits from Oct. 2002 and onwards, and also to consider him for promotion to the post of Deputy Forester.
5. On issuance of notice
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.