The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation and conduct of the enquiry, rejection order, and resultant removal of the petitioner from service were wrong, illegal, and arbitrary, and were quashed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia seeks quashment of the Office Order No. SIMS-163 (Per) of 2019 dated 29.11.2019, issued by respondent no.2-Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) Srinagar (for short ‘the Institute’), in terms whereof the case of the petitioner, after consideration was found without any merit, as such, rejected. Petitioner also seeks quashment of the Government Order No. 83-SKIMS of 2012 dated 02.08.2012, by virtue of which the petitioner has been deemed to have been removed from service with effect from July 1991. Furthermore, the petitioner prays for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner having been prematurely retired from service with effect from 02.03.2002 and release all service/pensionary benefits in her favour.

2. Briefly stated facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the respondent-Institute, on 22.06.1972 and was working as Associate Professor in the year 1990; that due to militancy in Kashmir Valley, the petitioner migrated to Delhi in the year 1990 and was registered as a migrant with J&K Resident Commissioner New Delhi; that she has also drawn her leave salary from 1990 to June 1991; that after completion of 20 years of qualifying service, the petitioner submitted an application on 02.03.2002 to respondent No.2 seeking her voluntary retirement as an Associate Professor; that while the petitioner was awaiting orders with regard to her voluntary retirement, a public notice dated 08.01.2005 came to be issued to the faculty members of respondent-Institute, having migrated early in 1990, either reported to have, discontinued drawl of their migrant salary from respective Migration Registration Centre, Delhi/Jammu or left the services and are absconding without any whereabouts known to the Migration Registration Centers or to the Institute, to give reasons as to why they be not treated unauthorizedly absent from the posts of their appointment at respondent-Institute.

3. Petitioner contended that in response to the said notice, she filed reply in which it was stated that she was neither un-authorisedly absent from duty nor has she failed to return after leave; that the petitioner being a Government employee has an option to seek voluntary retirement under Article 226(3) of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Regulations; that merely because the petitioner has not drawn her leave salary from July 1991 and onwards, would not mean that she was absent from duty; that the petitioner also submits that the respondents, instead of deciding her application seeking voluntary retirement, have resorted to the process of declaring her un-authorisedly absent; that all the employees who have migrated from Kashmir Valley are not actively involved in the performance of duty yet they are not being treated as on unauthorised absence; that the said notice dated 08.01.2005 came to be challenged through the medium of SWP No. 468/2005 and this Court vide order dated 16.04.2019 directed the respondents to proceed with the enquiry, if any, and in case enquiry goes in favour of the petitioner, the respondents shall consider her representation for voluntary retirement as per relevant provisions of law.

4. It is being alleged that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents issued a notice dated 25.03.2008, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why she shall not be treated as removed from the rolls of the respondent-Institute, from the date of her established unauthorized willful absence w.e.f., July 1991 from her respective Migrant Registration Centre; that in reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted that she was neither absent from duty nor applied for any leave and her case does not fall under the provisions of Article 128 of CSR; that after the copy of the judgment of this Court dated 16.04.2019 was served on the respondents, the petitioner time