The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for employees to adhere to procedural and leave rules, respond to requests for documentation, and comply with disciplinary proceedings to avoid adverse consequences.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order No. SKIMS/HA/532 of 2006 dated 01.06.2006, whereby his services as Steward were terminated for his unauthorized absence from duty by the Director Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Soura, Srinagar (for short ‘SKIMS).

2. Vide order dated 21.08.2020 of this Court, the matter was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar Bench for further proceedings in terms of Section 29 of the CAT Act. However, the learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.11.2022, sent back the matter to this Court, while making the observation that the matter pertains to SKIMS and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.

3. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that he had worked in SKIMS Soura Srinagar as a Steward for more than 20 years and was compelled to apply for leave on medical grounds which, however, was not sanctioned by the concerned authorities despite having produced the medical certificates and the supporting documents in this regard. He further submitted that he has a long unblemished service career at his back.

4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present litigation, as alleged by the petitioner, emanate from refusal/indecision on the part of the respondents to settle the leave case of the petitioner. In the month of August 2004, the petitioner was on visit to his home at Guzerial of District Kupwara, which is at a distance of 85 kms from his place of work i.e., SKIMS Soura Srinagar, and unfortunately fell ill. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for seven days leave w.e.f., 14.08.2004 on compelling health grounds and later on requested for extension of same, which, however, was not accepted by the respondents. However, on resuming his duties, he explained his circumstances through a detailed representation, copy of which is available on record. In the meantime, a charge sheet-came to be issued to the petitioner vide communication dated 24.02.2005 with the list of allegations annexed with the chargesheet. The petitioner, on 28.04.2005, replied the said charge sheet/communication, explaining his position. On 12.05.2005, the petitioner received another communication, wherein he was directed to submit all the supportive medical documents and certificate from the doctors in original treating him during his ailment. The petitioner complied with the said directions and provided all the documents/certificates to the respondents. Thereafter, another communication dated 28.06.2005 was issued by Accounts Officer Convener of Enquiry Committee informing the petitioner to appear before the Committee along-with supportive documents. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Committee reasoning his ailment and sought more time to appear before the Committee, which however, was not accepted and was again directed to appear before the Committee. Respondents thereafter, issued number of communications from time to time, directing the petitioner to submit original medical documents, to which petitioner replied and stated that he had already submitted all the relevant documents. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 01.06.2006 was issued, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Director SKIMS Soura Srinagar (Disciplinary Authority) in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 33 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956.

5. Respondents have filed their reply, stating therein that while issuing the order of termination against the petitioner, the authorities have observed all the codal formalities in accordance with law, regulations, rules, procedures etc., as laid down in this behalf. It is contended that the petitioner was repeatedly asked to submit all the requisite supportive documents in support of his statement, but he failed to do so. The competent/disciplinary authority considered the whole case and decided to conduct departmental enquiry in the matter of unauthorized abs