AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant had been put under suspension vide impugned order dated 12.03.2020. Thereafter, he had reported back and requested for leave on medical grounds. However, he is not being allowed to join his duty. Hence, this OA.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant who had been put under suspension has not reported to the office wherein he had been directed to do so. He, further quotes letter dated 13.05.2022 written by Director, Sheep Husbandry Department, Railway Head Complex, Jammu addressed to the Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary), Agriculture Production Department, Jammu and Kashmir, wherein he had stated as under :-
“Kindly refer to your office communication No. ASHF-SH0NGAZ/204/2021-03 dated 23.03.2022 on the captioned subject wherein detailed report was sought in the matter.
In this regard, it is submitted that vide this office communication No. DSHJ-ESTT0NG/2/2022/21064-65 dated 26.03.2022 the representation of above named office was forwarded to Sheep & Wool Development Officer, Kalakote for furnishing the detailed report/present status of the case.
Sheep & Wool Development Officer, Kalakote vide communication No. SDOK/Esstt/202-23/17-19 dated 04.04.2022 furnished its report whereunder he has submitted that the official was charge sheeted vide his office No. SDOK/Esstt/2020-21/1219-22 dated 24.02.2021 soon after he joined back his duties on 22.02.2021. The official remained present for a short period of time and again absconded on 27.02.202. Regarding release of subsistence allowance he has submitted that since the official was placed under suspension due to unauthorized absence from Govt. duties and his whereabouts were not known as such no subsistence allowance was released in favour of the official and when the official joined back and requested for release of subsistence allowance, he was asked to produce an affidavit for deduction of Rs. 10000-00 per month as maintenance allowance to his wife, as per Hon’ble Court orders but the official did not furnished the affidavit. Since the official remained absconded and did not return to duties, periodical view of suspension cannot be reviewed.”
At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to consider the averments made in this OA as a representation of the applicant and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a stipulated time frame.
Heard Mr. Sofi Manzoor, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Haqim Aman Ali, learned DAG, and perused the records.
In view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the averments made in the present OA as a representation of the applicant and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from today. A copy of the speaking order be given to the applicant.
It is made clear that I have not entered into the merits of the case. This disposes of OA No. 779/2022 accordingly. No order as to costs.