JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is aggrieved and seeks quashment of Order No.421-AHJ of 2002 dated 02.07.2002 passed by the respondent No.3 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated for unauthorised absence by invoking Article 128 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations Volume-1.

2. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper against the available vacancy in Govt. Medical College, Jammu and its attached Hospitals vide Office Order No.724/77 dated 14.10.1977 issued by the respondent No.3. The petitioner claims that he performed his duties as Sweeper for more than 24 years before his services were terminated vide order impugned. He claims that before terminating his services, he was not provided any opportunity of being heard nor any inquiry against him was conducted. He submits that his absence from duty w.e.f. 03.04.2001 to 07.01.2002 was neither intentional nor deliberate, but, because of the reason that after the demise of his mother, the petitioner suffered deep shock and underwent mental distress for long time. He claims that he had approached the respondents for grant of leave, but, such request was made orally for he being illiterate did not know how to apply for the leave. He further submits that though his services were terminated by the respondent No.3 at his back, yet, he was never served with the order of termination. Immediately on coming to know of his termination, he moved a representation before the respondent No.3 on 10.03.2007, but, the same could not yield any fruitful result. Another representation is claimed to have been filed by the petitioner on 26.09.2009. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions, it is contended that order impugned cannot sustain in law as the same has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice and against the mandate of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

3. The respondents have filed their objections. In the objections, the respondents contend that pursuant to the 'absent report' submitted by the Sanitary Inspector, the Medical Superintendent issued the first notice to the petitioner vide letter No.MCH/Est-/2/Notice/1245-47 dated 13.06.2001. The petitioner was again informed to report for duty by yet another letter issued on 25.06.2001. The petitioner did not respond to the notices nor did he report for duty. Finally, the Medical Superintendent vide his Notice No.MCH/est-2202/5484-87 dated 07.01.2002 directed the petitioner to resume his duty within 21 days from the date of issue of the notice failing which his services would be terminated in terms of Article 128 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations Volume-1 without any further notice. This notice as also earlier notices were duly published in the daily newspaper, i.e., 'State Times'. This time also the petitioner did not respond. Accordingly, by the impugned order, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 02.07.2002.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that in the instant case, the facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner was serving as Sweeper with the respondents when he unauthorisedly absented from duties w.e.f. 03.04.2001 and did not resume his duties despite having been called upon to do so by a couple of notices. The petitioner, however, disputes the service of the notices upon him. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the final notice issued by the respondents before issuing the termination letter was duly published in the daily newspaper, i.e., 'State Times' whereby a final opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to resume his duties. He, however, chose not to join back. In these circumstances, when despite notices, the petitioner did not respond, the respondents were left with no option but to terminate his services. True it is that order of termination of permanent employee cannot be passed without providing an opportunity of being heard. The termination of servic