1. Petitioner was appointed as Medical Assistant in the respondent university. Petitioner's services have been terminated w.e.f. 13th November, 1993, vide Uni­versity order No. 390 (Est.) of 1998 dated 14th November, 1998. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said order has challenged the same on the ground that initially earned leave was sanctioned in his favour and subsequently, though extension of leave was sought by submitting telegrams no decision was taken nor communicated to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that while terminating the services of the petitioner, procedure as prescribed by law has not been followed.

2. On issuing notice in this case, respondents filed counter affidavit/reply affidavit. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter.

4. Perusal of impugned termination order reveals that the petitioner was alleged to have absconded from duty w.e.f. 13th November, 1993. It further reveals that show cause notice was served upon him by Chief Training Organizer KVK, Malangpora, under No. AU/KVK/94/284-85 dated 26-09-1994. It is stated in the impugned termination order that a public notice under No. AU/ADM/1/1-5/6 dated 04-09-1998 was served through local dailies and the petitioner was directed to report for duty within period of 21 days and was further directed that incase of failure to report for duty, his services will be terminated.

5. It is for the reasons mentioned in the impugned termination order that the services of petitioner were ordered to be terminated w.e.f. 13th November, 1993. The respondents alongwith counter affidavit/reply affidavit have placed on record the notice issued to the petitioner bearing No. AU/KVK/94/284-85 dated 26th September, 1994. The said notice was issued by Chief Training Organizer, Camp Malangpora. In the said notice, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted earned leave w.e.f 14th September, 1993 for a period of one month which was sanctioned in his favour in terms Order No. KVK/CS/93/1-3/301-2 dated 09th September, 1993. It is further highlighted in the said notice that petitioner has submitted telegram requesting for extension of 30 days leave which has been sanctioned in his favour vide order No. KVK/CS/94/583-85 dated 27-01-1994. The said notice fur­ther demonstrates that petitioner has submitted two more telegrams requesting therein for extension of earned leave. In terms of said notice petitioner was informed that his leave case will not be settled/decided, unless and until he rejoins his duties. The petitioner was asked to rejoin his duties as otherwise disciplinary action will be initiated in terms of Article 128 of J&K Civil Service Rules. The respondents have placed on record the reply submitted by petitioner to the said notice. In the reply the petitioner has reiterated statement that he had sent telegrams seeking extension of earned leave. The petitioner has also stated in the said reply that because of the prevailing circumstances the work could not be continued at Malangpora and the authority had to shift to Shalimar. In the reply to show cause notice it is also stated that job requirement at Shalimar was minimum which made the petitioner to accept job in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is also stated in that reply that absence of the petitioner will not affect the working at his place of posting and had it been so, he would not have preferred job outside the country.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition and also in his aforementioned show cause notice, a duty was cast on the respondents to initiate an inquiry in accordance with rules and afford opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. Learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Union of India and others v. Dinanath Shan to ram Karekar and others, reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2722 and Division Bench judg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document