Unauthorized absentee cannot claim to have performed his duties satisfactorily: DB

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Yousaf Wani held that while dismissing the appeal against the order Central Administrative Trbunal holds that A person who started remaining unauthorized absent from the very beginning cannot claim to have performed his duties to the satisfaction of his employer. Not only the petitioner failed to undergo the mandatory basic recruitment training course, but he failed to perform his duties in the Police Lines where he was posted after being withdrawn from the training. This clearly shows that the petitioner was not interested in the job from the day one and was taking his employer for granted. Yet the employer did not stigmatize the petitioner or held him guilty of any misconduct, but discharged him for having failed to perform his duties satisfactorily during the probation period. The impugned order of discharge is thus an order of discharge simplicitor and, as such, no departmental enquiry was called for. The petitioner was not holding any civil post under the State on substantive basis and, therefore, Article 311 of the Constitution of India or for that matter the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 were not attracted or applicable.
The petitioner Shabir Ahmad Ahanger in this petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the judgment dated 17th February 2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu (the Tribunal) in TA No. 6317/2020 (SWP No. 1042/2005) titled Shabir Ahmad Ahanger vs. State of JK & Ors. whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner to throw challenge to order No. 631 of 2002 dated 18.10.2002 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pulwama. The impugned judgment is assailed on multiple grounds. However, before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to refer to the material facts which are germane to the disposal of this petition.
The petitioner came to be appointed as Constable in the J&K Police in the year 2000 and was put on probation. On 28th February 2002, the petitioner was deputed to undergo basic recruitment training course at Manigam. The petitioner absented from training w.e.f 4th March 2002 and was thus reverted to his parent district by PTS Manigam vide order issued under Endorsement No. 1222-24 dated 29th March 2002. The petitioner reported to the District Superintendent of Police concerned on 21st July 2002 for duties and was permitted. However, on 18th August 2002, he again absented unauthorisedly and reported back on 22nd August 2002. Finally, on 25th August 2002, the petitioner again absented from duty unauthorisedly and did not report. The Dy. SP. (DAR) Pulwama conducted a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and recommended his discharge from service w.e.f. 25th August 2002. Taking note of frequent unauthorized absence of the petitioner during probation, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pulwama vide order No. 631 of 2002 dated 18th October 2002 discharged the petitioner from service w.e.f 25th August 2002 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove himself a good police official during his probation. It is this order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Pulwama which was called in question by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and the material on record and arrived at the conclusion that the discharge of the petitioner during probation which was not in any manner stigmatic in nature and, therefore, perfectly legal. The petitioner was, thus, dismissed vide order and judgment impugned passed by the Tribunal.