J&K&Ladakh HC Refuses To Interfere With Termination Of Employee After Being Absent From Duty For 12 Years Due To Mental Illness
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in a review petition, has refused to interfere with the termination of an employee who was absent from his duties for 12 years due to a mental ailment.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held “What he has placed on record is a copy of the prescription and a copy of the certificate issued by a Psychiatrist which only show that the petitioner had been under treatment of the Psychiatrist. Whether the mental ailment with which the petitioner was suffering was of such a nature as would have rendered him incapable of joining his duties is not substantiated by any document placed on record before the Writ Court. It seems that on account of this, the learned Writ Court has observed that the instant case is not covered by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Geetaben Ratilal Patel’s case (supra).”
Advocate G.A. Lone appeared for the Petitioner while Deputy AG Hakeem Aman Ali appeared for the Respondents.
A review petition was filed against the judgment passed by the Court in a writ petition whereby the Petitioner had challenged his termination order passed by the Respondents.
It was the case of the Petitioner that he was posted as a Cashier in the Government Treasury, Bandipora, and he had proceeded on leave for twelve days on August 20, 1992. He had overstayed the leave for about 12 years, whereafter he reported back to duty in the year 2004. In September 2004, the petitioner had presented himself before the Respondent-Department and pleaded that his long absence was justified due to his ailment certified by the doctors. Consequently, the Respondents had passed an order of termination against him, which was challenged by him vide a writ petition.
The writ court had concluded that the petitioner had remained on long unauthorized absence which he could not substantiate on the strength of any material before the Enquiry Officer, hence there was no merit in his petition.
The Court said, “From the above it is clear that it is not a case where the learned Writ Court has not taken note of the either the observations of the Enquiry Officer with regard to mental state of the petitioner or the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner but it is a case where the learned Writ Court was clearly conscious of these contentions and in spite of this, the Writ Court has taken a view that the petitioner has not been able to justify his long absence from duty.”
The Court said that an erroneous view of law is no ground for review though it may be a ground for appeal and it seems that the petitioner in the guise of the review petition was trying to persuade the Court to rehear the case as if it is sitting in appeal over its judgment, which is not permissible in law.
Accordingly, the Court refused to exercise its review jurisdiction and dismissed the review as being sans merits.
Cause Title: Pervaz Ahmad Parra v. State of J&K and Ors
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate G.A. Lone
Respondents: Deputy AG Hakeem Aman Ali
