Court affirmed 'No Work No Pay' applies where absence is unauthorized and justified by inquiry findings.

ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Latif, Member (Judl.)

Through the medium of instant TA, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:-

“(i) The order impugned bearing No.65 of 2010, dated 30.06.2010 issued by the respondent No.4 be quashed and set aside to the extent of the operative portion contained in para No.4 of the order which is reproduced herein below:-

“….Therefore, agreeing with the recommendations of enquiry officer, it is hereby ordered that the period of absence w.e.f. 16.01.2004 to 05.08.2004 in respect of the official is treated as “Diesnon” and the subjudice period w.e.f. 26.04.2004 to 16.02.2008 (42 months and 9 days) is treated as extra ordinary leave in response to IGP Crime Hqrs. Order No.38 of 2010….”

(ii) The respondents be commanded to treat the period of alleged absence w.e.f. 16.01.2004 to 05.08.2004 and further 26.04.2004 to 16.02.2008 i.e. 42 months and 9 days as period of duty in respect of the petitioner and pay him all the consequential benefits which include salary and other allowances and he be given seniority and promotion and increments whichever have become due to him as if no order of discharge was ever passed.

(iii) Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble court deems just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

2. Alongside the main prayer, the petitioner prays for interim relief to stay the operation of execution of the impugned order bearing No.65/2010 dated 30.06.2010.

3. The facts of the case, as narrated by the petitioner in the instant OA, are reproduced as under:-

(i) The case of the petitioner is that on 11.01.2004, he applied for 5 days casual leave but unfortunately on 15.01.2004, due to acute Gastro Intestinal Bleeding and steep down of Hemoglobin, he was admitted in SMHS Hospital for quite some time. After recovery from the ailment after a couple of months, the petitioner went to respondent’s office to resume his duties but he was not allowed to join and without conducting any inquiry, he has been discharged from service.

(ii) The petitioner challenged the discharge order No.234 of 2004 dated 05.08.2004 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Kashmir before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar through SWP No.1202/2006 wherein, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to accept the writ petition and vide judgment dated 16.02.2008, quashed the discharge order and gave liberty to the respondents to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner after providing full opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

(iii) After the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, respondents took about four months to implement the judgment and the petitioner was reinstated back into the services vide order No.74 of 2008 dated 02.06.2008 and simultaneously a departmental inquiry was also ordered to be conducted by Sh. Khalid Muzaffar CPO Crime Branch, Kashmir, who was asked to complete the same within three months time (Annexure – B).

(iv) According to the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry though he was not associated with the same and Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the competent authority i.e. respondent No.4 and the competent authority, with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, passed order No.65 of 2010 dated 30.06.2010 whereby the period of absence w.e.f. 16.01.2004 to 05.08.2004 was treated as “Dies-non” and the subjudice period from 26.04.2004 to 16.02.2008 (i.e. 42 months and 9 days) was treated as “Extraordinary Leave” purportedly in response to IGP Crime Headquarters order No.38 of 2010 (Annexure-C).

4. The petit