Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Reserved On: 14Th Of August vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2025
Author: Sindhu Sharma
Bench: Sindhu Sharma
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Reserved On: 14th of August, 2025
Pronounced On: 26th of August, 2025
Nasir Ahmad Parray, Age: 43 Years
S/O Abdul Aziz Parray
R/O Jabla, Uri, Kashmir.
... Appellant(s)
Through: -
Mr Nisar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate.
V/s
1. Union of India,
Through Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Delhi.
2. Director General,
Central Reserve Police Force,
New Delhi C/o 56 APO.
3. Commandant, 84-Bn,
Central Reserve Police Force,
Village Chatha, Jammu.
4. Company Commander,
84-Bn, Central Reserve Police Force,
Udhampur.
... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, DSGI with
Ms Rehana Qayoom, Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms Justice Sindhu Sharma, Judge
Hon'ble Mr Justice Shahzad Azeem, Judge
(JUDGMENT)
Shahzad Azeem-J:
01. Before touching the merits of the case, we deem it proper to set
the record straight. It is relevant to note that when the matter came up for
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 2 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
hearing, it has been noticed that before the Writ Court the Appellant-Writ
Petitioner has impleaded as many as 04 Respondents, however, to the
contrary, in the memo of parties in the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), there
are 05 Respondents. Therefore, when this variation is pointed out to Mr
Nisar Ahmad Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Writ
Petitioner, he fairly conceded that it is only due to typographical mistake
Respondent No.4, i.e., "University Grants Commission" came to be
reflected in the memo of parties and, thus, the learned Counsel prayed that
same may be deleted from the array of Respondents.
02. Accordingly, the statement made by the learned Counsel for
the Appellant is taken on record and the Respondent No.4-University
Grants Commission is struck off from the array of Respondents and, as a
corollary thereof, the Respondent No.5, i.e., Company Commander, 84-Bn,
Central Reserve Police Force, Udhampur shall be read as Respondent No.4,
as has been reflected before the Writ Court also.
I. SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE:
03. This intra Court appeal is directed against the Judgment dated
October 15, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge ["the Writ Court"] in
SWP No. 1822/2013 titled 'Nisar Ahmad Parray v. Union of India &
Ors.', whereby the Writ Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the
Appellant-Writ Petitioner seeking quashment of his Order of dismissal from
the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) under Section 11 (1) of the
Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 [for short "the Act of 1949"] read
with Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 [hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules of 1955"].
II. FACTS:
04. The background facts need to be noted in brief:
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 3 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
05. The Appellant, in the year 1994, came to be appointed as a
Constable in the 84 Bn of CRPF and continue to perform his duty as such,
till 2001, when he suffered some medical emergency. However, although
during the intervening period, he is said to have underwent treatment, but
on account of his deteriorating health condition, applied for Earned Leave
w.e.f. 27th of October, 2005 to 5th of December, 2005, which was
accordingly sanctioned in his favour and, thus proceeded on leave.
06. After expiry of the leave period, the Appellant did not report
back, purportedly due to health reasons. Therefore, the Appellant when
regained health is said to have reported to the Bn, but he was not permitted
to join, resultantly, he filed Writ Petition, being SWP No. 1093/2013. The
said Writ Petition, vide Order dated June 19, 2013, came to be disposed of
at the motion hearing stage with the direction to the Respondents to
consider the claim of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner under Rules.
Accordingly, in compliance thereto, the Respondents, vide Order dated
August 03, 2013, accorded consideration to the case of the Appellant and,
thus, rejected the same, detailing therein that the Appellant has been
dismissed from service w.e.f. February 26, 2007 in pursuance of
Departmental Enquiry [DE] held by the competent authority.
07. As a consequence to the above, the Appellant, through the
medium of SWP No. 1822/2013, impugned the Order of dismissal dated
February 26, 2007 and also Order dated August 03, 2013, whereby the
consideration to the case of the Appellant was accorded in compliance to
the direction passed in Writ Court in SWP No. 1093/2013 and same was
rejected.
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE WRIT COURT:
08. The pleas raised by the Appellant before the Writ Court that he
was struggling with medical condition, inasmuch as he was never informed
about the holding of Departmental Enquiry did not weigh with the Writ
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 4 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
Court, mainly, on the ground that neither the Appellant could place on
record any medical prescription showing that he was ever admitted as an
indoor patient nor from the record produced by the Respondents the Writ
Court could satisfy itself with the plea of the Appellant that at no point of
time he was informed regarding the conduct of Departmental Enquiry. In
that, the Writ Court has returned the finding on the basis of record that not
only the Appellant was duly informed, but even Special Messenger was
also sent, however, it is only after the failure of the Appellant to resume the
duty, the impugned Order of dismissal came to be passed after observing
due procedure as envisaged under the Act of 1949 and the Rules of 1955.
IV. CHALLENGE:
09. Since, we will be dealing with the relevant submissions raised
by the Appellant and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal at length
hereinafter, therefore, for the sake of brevity, it is suffice to say that the
bone of contention of the Appellant is that his absence was not deliberate,
rather, same was due to his deteriorating health condition, coupled with the
fact that, though he properly informed the Respondents about the cause of
his failure to join back the duty after expiry of his leave period, but same
has not been taken into consideration by the Writ Court, while passing the
impugned Judgment.
10. The other limb of argument of the Appellant is that, while
passing the Order of dismissal, the Respondents have blatantly violated the
rules of natural justice as he was never informed regarding holding of the
Departmental Enquiry against him, therefore, the Respondents failed to
observe the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1949 and the Rules of
1955, while holding ex-parte Departmental Enquiry against him, but the
Writ Court did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter.
11. Per contra, Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, the learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Respondents, vehemently
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 5 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
argued that sufficient material was placed on record before the Writ Court
regarding the willful absence of the Appellant and numerous notices in this
regard came to be issued to the Appellant, inasmuch as a Special Messenger
was also sent, but the Appellant neither responded nor resumed the duty,
therefore, the Respondents were left with no option but to hold an ex-parte
Enquiry, which resulted in passing of the Order of dismissal against the
Appellant.
12. The learned Counsel further canvassed at Bar that it was only
on the basis of record submitted before the Writ Court and, after drawing
satisfaction that all the codal formalities were completed by the
Respondents, the impugned Order of dismissal came to be passed, as such,
the Writ Court, on sound legal principles, dismissed the Writ Petition,
therefore, no fault can be found with the same, hence prayed for the
dismissal of the appeal.
V. ANALYSIS:
13. The Writ Court had come to the conclusion that the absence of
the Appellant-Writ Petitioner was not on account of health condition and,
therefore, Appellant, being member of a disciplined force and such conduct
cannot be countenanced on any count. The Writ Court has also returned a
specific finding that the Respondents have duly informed the Appellant, but
he did not turn up, therefore, rightly impugned Order of dismissal came to
be passed. However, although before us also, on the similar lines, the
Appellant has questioned the legality of the impugned Judgment dated
October 15, 2019 passed by the Writ Court, but, as propriety demands, we
deem it proper to test the legality of the impugned Judgment in the light of
the available record and rival contentions urged by the learned Counsels for
the parties.
14. Admittedly, the Appellant had proceeded on earned leave
w.e.f. October 27, 2005 to December 05, 2005 and he was required to join
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 6 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
back the duty on December 06, 2005, i.e., after expiry of his leave period.
But, the Appellant failed to report back and, thus, became 'Over Staying
Leave' (O.S.L.) w.e.f. December 06, 2005. The contention of the Appellant
is that because of his deteriorating health condition, he could not report
back on expiry of the leave period and this fact was duly brought in the
notice of Respondents by way of representation filed through his father.
According to the Appellant, he was undergoing treatment and was, all
along, being examined in the Hospital and was continuously getting follow-
up treatment till February, 2013, but, thereafter, when he reported back
before 84 Bn CRPF, which, at that time, was stationed at Udhampur, but he
was not allowed to join, therefore, he filed SWP No. 1093/2013 and it is
only, thereafter, he came to know that he has been dismissed from service.
15. Broadly speaking, the points for our consideration arise: as to
whether the Respondents have complied with the rules of natural justice
while holding of Departmental Enquiry and the reason of the Appellant for
not joining the duty on medical grounds considered properly, coupled with
the fact as to whether the Respondents have observed the due procedure
before inflicting the punishment of dismissal upon the Appellant.
16. In order to find out as to whether before initiating the
Departmental Enquiry, the Appellant was duly informed or not, in this
regard, again, we have thrashed the record of the Departmental Enquiry
produced by the Respondents. Perusal of the record reveals that when on
expiry of the leave period, Appellant failed to report back, notices/
communications dated December 14, 2005, December 22, 2005 and
December 31, 2005, respectively, came to be duly issued to the home
address of the Appellant, directing him to report on duty, failing which
disciplinary action will be initiated. The Appellant neither reported back nor
responded to the said communications issued by the Respondents.
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 7 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
17. Thereupon, the Officer Commanding, vide communication
dated January 09, 2006, lodged a complaint against the Appellant in the
Court of CJM-cum-Commandant-84 Bn, who on receipt of the complaint,
vide letter dated January 28, 2006, directed the Senior Superintendent of
Police [SSP], Baramulla to apprehend the Appellant and hand over him to
Additional DIGP, GC, CRPF, GC, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir for further
action, but the Appellant could not be apprehended for the reason as
depicted in the communication of SSP, Baramulla that on enquiry, it has
been reported to him that the Appellant is undergoing treatment somewhere
in Jammu in a private Hospital, since January, 2006 and also the SSP,
Baramulla enclosed the medical certificates, which would depict that these
certificates have been issued by the Medical Superintendent, Government
Psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar and not that of any hospital from Jammu.
18. When the Appellant did not turn up, the Respondents have
convened a Court of Inquiry vide Order dated June 20, 2006 and, after
holding the Court of Inquiry, the Appellant was declared as "deserter" vide
Order dated July 30, 2006. It appears that the Respondents have, again, in
order to ascertain the genuineness of the cause of absence of the Appellant
from duty, sent HC/ GD Mr Mushtaq Ahmad, CRPF personnel posted in 84
Bn, to the residence of the Appellant on August 02, 2006. The statement of
Mr Mushtaq Ahmad is on record and perusal whereof shows that on his
visit, a startling revelation came to fore that the Appellant, to the surprise of
everybody, found to have been running a Garment shop near his residence.
19. It is seen that when repeated notices/ communications did not
yield any result and also Special Messenger sent by the Respondents to find
out the cause of absence of Appellant reported that the Appellant is fit and
fine, who is running a Garment Shop, the Respondents got convinced about
the willful absence of the Appellant, therefore, charges regarding
misconduct were framed and 'Articles of Charges' duly dispatched to the
Appellant through registered post vide letter dated September 24, 2006,
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 8 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
whereupon, Enquiry Officer came to be appointed vide Order dated October
24, 2006.
20. The Commanding Officer, C, 84 BN CRPF, vide letter dated
October 21, 2006, intimated the Appellant about holding of Departmental
Enquiry and nomination of Enquiry Officer regarding his desertion/
unauthorized absence beyond the sanctioned leave granted in his favour.
The Appellant was also asked to present before the Enquiry Officer or
submit his reply through post within a period of 15 days, otherwise, the
Enquiry shall be conducted ex-parte, but the Appellant neither responded
nor turned up.
21. Again, the Enquiry Officer, vide communication dated
December 19, 2006, asked the Appellant to submit reply, but despite same
having been duly delivered, the Appellant, yet again, failed to respond.
22. On December 20, 2006, the Enquiry Officer sent copies of the
statement of witnesses recorded during Enquiry proceedings to the
Appellant with a direction to submit his evidence within a period of 15
days, but, as per record, he did not respond.
23. Subsequently, on January 23, 2007, the Commandant, C, 84
Bn sent a copy of Enquiry report to the Appellant through registered post
with a direction to the Appellant to submit his reply within a period of 15
days, but this too met with same fate.
24. Finally, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer, Shri Ram Chander Jatt, in terms of communication dated
January 11, 2007, the Commandant, being the competent authority, after
recording his findings, dismissed the Appellant from service vide Order
dated February 26, 2007, which was subject matter of challenge before the
Writ Court.
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 9 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
25. The perusal of record further makes it abundantly clear that the
Respondents have, at every stage of the proceedings, duly informed the
Appellant, either through registered post or tried to reach out to him through
Special Messenger, so much so, a warrant was also issued through SSP,
Baramulla, but on enquiry, again, it appears that the SSP, Baramulla was
misled by the family members of the Appellant on the ground that the
Appellant is undergoing treatment in some private hospital in Jammu,
whereas, the fact of the matter remains that there is no iota of documentary
proof that the Appellant ever underwent treatment in any of the hospitals in
Jammu.
26. Therefore, the plea of the Appellant that the departmental
proceedings have been conducted against him in violation of the principles
of natural justice is not only misconceived, but also self-defeating, rather, it
appears that the Appellant never intended to resume his duties, as he was
found to have been running a Garment shop, which itself substantiates the
act of grave misconduct on the part of the Appellant.
27. Now, let us consider the plea of the Appellant that due to bad
health, he could not join the duty, but same is not considered in right
perspective.
28. Although, the Writ Court has held threadbare discussion on the
point of the alleged health condition of the Appellant, but, for our
satisfaction, we have again tried to cull out as to whether the alleged
ailment was in fact of such magnitude that constrained him not to join the
duties.
29. In this regard, all the medical prescriptions available on record
beyond any doubt shows that the Appellant, all along, got treatment as an
outdoor patient and, thus, the Writ Court rightly took note of the said fact in
the impugned Judgment.
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 10 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
30. The communication of SSP, Baramulla, rather casts a cloud on
the conduct of the Appellant, as his family members tried to mislead the
SSP, Baramulla by convincing that the Appellant is undergoing treatment in
a private hospital at Jammu, but, when we through a glance over the
medical prescriptions enclosed with the letter of the SSP, Baramulla, the
same seem to have been issued by Medical Superintendent, Government
Psychiatric Hospital, Srinagar, therefore, it shows the mala fide on the part
of the Appellant, so as to conceal himself from being apprehended and also
attempt to generate false evidence, so as to justify his desertion/
unauthorized absence from duty. This opinion of ours is further cemented
from the fact that, instead of showing bona fide by approaching the
Respondents, the Appellant tried to hoodwink the Respondents by filing
Writ Petition SWP No. 1093/2013, on the ground that he was not allowed to
join and also further made attempt to create the evidence by taking refuge
under undated purported representation submitted by his father.
31. As we have discussed at length hereinbefore that prior to
passing of Order of dismissal from service against the Appellant, he was
duly informed of all the proceedings, so much so, the perusal of Order of
dismissal shows that the copy whereof was duly endorsed to the Appellant
and dispatched to his home address through registered post, therefore, the
plea of the Appellant that he was not even served with the dismissal Order
is without any basis, rather, same is belied by the record which speaks
abundantly for itself. Hence, we do not find any procedural illegality or
irregularity committed by the Respondents in holding disciplinary
proceedings, till their final culmination in the shape of order of dismissal.
32. The learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case titled 'State of West
Bengal etc. v. M. R. Mondal and Anr.; AIR 2001 SC 3471', to buttress
his argument that if any order is passed but not communicated to the
affected party, same has no valid existence in the eye of law.
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 11 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
33. As we have discussed at length that at every stage while
holding the Enquiry or taking any proposed action against the Appellant,
the Respondents have duly informed him, but, it is only after his failure to
respond, the proceedings against the Appellant were conducted in ex-parte,
therefore, the aforesaid Judgment relied by the Appellant is of no help, in
the facts and circumstance of the case on hand.
34. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has tried to
convince the Court that since the case on hand is one of overstaying of
leave, falling within the four corners of Section 10 (m) of the Act of 1949
and under the heading "less heinous offences", as such, the punishment
imposed is disproportionate to the alleged acts of omission and commission
on the part of the Appellant.
35. The issue raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant has
its answer lying in Rule 31 of the Rules of 1955 itself, which deals with
"desertion and absence without leave". Rule 31 of the Rules of 1955,
inter alia, provides that if a member of the force who becomes liable for
trial under clause (m) of Section 10 of the Act of 1949 does not return of his
own free will or is not apprehended within sixty days of the commencement
of the desertion, absence or overstayal of leave, then the Commandant shall
assemble a Court of Inquiry to inquire into the desertion, absence or
overstayal of leave of the offender and such other matters as may be
brought before them. Clause (c) of Rule 31 further provides that on
completion of the Court of Inquiry, the Commandant shall publish in the
Force Order the findings of the Court of Inquiry and the absentee shall be
declared as a "deserter" from the Force from the date of his illegal
absence. Therefore, to say that it is a case of simplicitor overstayal of leave,
same runs contrary to the statutory provisions contained under Rule 31 of
the Rules of 1955, as such, the Respondents have rightly declared the
Appellant as a "deserter" on finding him unauthorizedly absented from
duty, upon his failure to join the duty on expiry of his leave period.
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 12 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
36. Since, this issue is no more res integra and is settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, without further going into this aspect of
the matter, it is worthwhile to take note of the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in somewhat similar circumstances in case titled
'Union of India & Ors. v. Datta Linga Toshatwad; (2005) 13 Supreme
Court Cases 709', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.8,
observed, thus:
"8. The present case is not a case of a constable merely
overstaying his leave by 12 days. The respondent took leave
from 16-6-1997 and never reported for duty thereafter.
Instead he filed a writ petition before the High Court in which
the impugned order has been passed. Members of the
uniformed forces cannot absent themselves on frivolous
pleas, having regard to the nature of the duties enjoined on
these forces. Such indiscipline, if it goes unpunished, will
greatly affect the discipline of the forces. In such forces
desertion is a serious matter. Cases of this nature, in whatever
manner described, are cases of desertion particularly when
there is apprehension of the member of the force being called
upon to perform onerous duties in difficult terrains or an
order of deputation which he finds inconvenient, is passed.
We cannot take such matters lightly, particularly when it
relates to uniformed forces of this country. A member of a
uniformed force who overstays his leave by a few days must
be able to give a satisfactory explanation. However, a
member of the force who goes on leave and never reports for
duties thereafter, cannot be said to be one merely overstaying
his leave. He must be treated as a deserter. He appears on the
scene for the first time when he files a writ petition before the
High Court, rather than reporting to his Commanding Officer.
We are satisfied that in cases of this nature, dismissal from
the force is a justified disciplinary action and cannot be
described as disproportionate to the misconduct alleged."
37. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Union of
India & Ors. v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat; (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases
228', what has been observed in paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 assumes
importance, which reads, thus:
"7. It may be noted that Section 9 of the Act mentions
serious or heinous offences and also prescribes penalty which
may be awarded for them. Section 10 deals with less heinous
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 13 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
offences and clause (m) thereof shows that absence of a
member of the Force without leave or without sufficient case
or overstay without sufficient cause, is also mentioned as less
heinous offence and for that also a sentence of imprisonment
is provided. It is, therefore, clear that Section 11 deals with
only those minor punishments which may be awarded in a
departmental inquiry and a plain reading thereof makes it
quite clear that a punishment of dismissal can certainly be
awarded thereunder even if the delinquent is not prosecuted
for an offence under Section 9 or Section 10.
.....
9. This Court had occasion to deal with the cases of
overstay by persons belonging to disciplined forces. In State
of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh, the employee was a police
constable and it was held that an act of indiscipline by such a
person needs to be dealt with sternly. It is for the employee
concerned to show how that penalty was disproportionate to
the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been
placed by the appellant to show as to how the punishment
could be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. It
has been categorically held that in a given case the order of
dismissal from service cannot be faulted. In the instant case
the period is more than 300 days and that too without any
justifiable reason. That being so the order of removal from
service suffers from no infirmity. The High Court was not
justified in interfering with the same. The order of the High
Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed but under the
circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.”
38. From the above noted authoritative pronouncement of the
Apex Court, there remains no iota of doubt that a member of uniformed
force, who overstays his leave and never reports for duties, must be treated
as a “deserter”, therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service of such
member of uniformed force cannot be described as disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct. Therefore, in view of the settled proposition of law, the
plea raised by the Appellant that the punishment of dismissal from service
is disproportionate to the alleged conduct is devoid of any merit.
39. Even otherwise, it is settled proposition of law that the scope
of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very
limited to the extent as to whether there is any mala fide or perversity in
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 14 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
arriving at any decision and, as such, the power of judicial review cannot be
stretched to replace the findings of fact arrived at in the Departmental
Enquiry. Therefore, once from the available record, sufficient proof of
adherence to rules of natural justice is discernible, inasmuch as no mala fide
or perversity is found to have been committed in the decision making
process, in that event, interference in any manner is totally unwarranted and
uncalled for.
40. It goes without saying that the Appellant, being a member of a
disciplined Force, is expected to observe a high standard of discipline and,
if he is found lacking in any manner, then, undoubtedly, he is required to be
dealt with sternly.
41. In the case on hand, it has been found that the Departmental
Enquiry came to be conducted in accordance with the statutory rules and no
allegation of mala fide, bias or violation of principles of natural justice was
substantiated. The Court’s role is limited to reviewing the fairness of the
process, not substituting its own view on the proportionality.
42. The aforesaid Judgments clarify that Section 11 (1) of the Act
of 1949 complemented by Rule 27 of the Rules of 1955 which empowers
the competent authority to impose the punishment of removal or dismissal
even for the offences catalogued under Section 10 (m) of the Act of 1949. It
reinforces the Hon’ble Apex Court’s consistent stand that serious
indiscipline in uniformed services justifies stern penalties.
43. Since, all the pleas raised by the Appellant, be it regarding the
non-serving of notices/ communications relating to holding of Enquiry;
violation of rules of natural justice; inasmuch as the medical grounds; etc.;
are belied by the record, therefore, it seems that the Appellant, at every
stage, made an abortive attempt to justify his unauthorized absence which,
when tested on the anvil of facts and law, does not withstand judicial
scrutiny.
LPA No. 300/2019 in
SWP No. 1822/2013
Page 15 of 15
2025:JKLHC-SGR:233-DB
VI. RELIEF:
44. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error of fact or
law committed by the Writ Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition vide
impugned Judgment under challenge, therefore, same does not call for any
interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal, being devoid of any merit, is
dismissed. Interim direction(s), if any, subsisting as on date, shall stand
vacated.
45. The record produced by the Respondents be returned to them
through their Counsel, with due dispatch.
(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
August 26th, 2025
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Judgment is approved for reporting? Yes.