JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order No. SKIMS/HA/532 of 2006 dated 01.06.2006, whereby his services as Steward were terminated for his unauthorized absence from duty by the Director Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Soura, Srinagar (for short ‘SKIMS). 2. Vide order dated 21.08.2020 of this Court, the matter was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal Srinagar Bench for further proceedings in terms of Section 29 of the CAT Act. However, the learned Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.11.2022, sent back the matter to this Court, while making the observation that the matter pertains to SKIMS and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. 3. The grievance projected by the petitioner is that he had worked in SKIMS Soura Srinagar as a Steward for more than 20 years and was compelled to apply for leave on medical grounds which, however, was not sanctioned by the concerned authorities despite having produced the medical certificates and the supporting documents in this regard. He further submitted that he has a long unblemished service career at his back. 4. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present litigation, as alleged by the petitioner, emanate from refusal/indecision on the part of the respondents to settle the leave case of the petitioner. In the month of August 2004, the petitioner was on visit to his home at Guzerial of District Kupwara, which is at a distance of 85 kms from his place of work i.e., SKIMS Soura Srinagar, and unfortunately fell ill. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for seven days leave w.e.f., 14.08.2004 on compelling health grounds and later on requested for extension of same, which, however, was not accepted by the respondents. However, on resuming his duties, he explained his circumstances through a detailed representation, copy of which is available on record. In the meantime, a charge sheet-came to be issued to the petitioner vide communication dated 24.02.2005 with the list of allegations annexed with the chargesheet. The petitioner, on 28.04.2005, replied the said charge sheet/communication, explaining his position. On 12.05.2005, the petitioner received another communication, wherein he was directed to submit all the supportive medical documents and certificate from the doctors in original treating him during his ailment. The petitioner complied with the said directions and provided all the documents/certificates to the respondents. The petitioner, on 28.04.2005, replied the said charge sheet/communication, explaining his position. On 12.05.2005, the petitioner received another communication, wherein he was directed to submit all the supportive medical documents and certificate from the doctors in original treating him during his ailment. The petitioner complied with the said directions and provided all the documents/certificates to the respondents. Thereafter, another communication dated 28.06.2005 was issued by Accounts Officer Convener of Enquiry Committee informing the petitioner to appear before the Committee along-with supportive documents. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Committee reasoning his ailment and sought more time to appear before the Committee, which however, was not accepted and was again directed to appear before the Committee. Respondents thereafter, issued number of communications from time to time, directing the petitioner to submit original medical documents, to which petitioner replied and stated that he had already submitted all the relevant documents. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 01.06.2006 was issued, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Director SKIMS Soura Srinagar (Disciplinary Authority) in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Rule 33 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956. 5. Respondents have filed their reply, stating therein that while issuing the order of termination against the petitioner, the authorities have observed all the codal formalities in accordance with law, regulations, rules, procedures etc., as laid down in this behalf. It is contended that the petitioner was repeatedly asked to submit all the requisite supportive documents in support of his statement, but he failed to do so. The competent/disciplinary authority considered the whole case and decided to conduct departmental enquiry in the matter of unauthorized absence of the petitioner by a Committee constituted in this regard and the said Committee gave sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to present himself before the Committee alongwith all supportive documents, which he failed to produce in his defense. All the communications were served upon the petitioner by the authorities by post as well as through publication in daily newspaper. Failure on part of the petitioner to present himself before the Committee gave rise to the respondents to arrive at the preliminary conclusion to remove the petitioner from the rolls of SKIMS with effect from 14.08.2004, the period of his unauthorized absence from duty. Failure on part of the petitioner to present himself before the Committee gave rise to the respondents to arrive at the preliminary conclusion to remove the petitioner from the rolls of SKIMS with effect from 14.08.2004, the period of his unauthorized absence from duty. Accordingly, notice dated 28.12.2005 was issued to be petitioner to show cause as to why he be not removed from the services within 30 days from the date of issuance of the said notice, which was also published in daily newspaper “Aftab”. The reply filed by the petitioner, was considered by the respondents and he was asked to produce all the supportive documentary evidence in original but he submitted only photocopies of prescription of treatment and also photocopy of the certificate issued by Tehsildar Kupwara to the effect that the residential house of the petitioner was damaged in the earthquake occurred on 08.10.2005. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Committee came to the conclusion to terminate the services of the petitioner for not complying with the transfer order and not furnishing the original supportive documents to substantiate his ground of ailment. Aggrieved of his termination from services, petitioner has filed the instant petition. 6. Mr. Andrabi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while making submissions, states that Rule 25(1) of J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1979 provides that overstaying of medical leave is to be treated on half pay leave. Petitioner has not willfully absented from duty as while on leave he fell ill at his home, which was at the distance of about 85 kms from his place of work. Learned counsel further submits that Article 311 of the Constitution of India has not been followed with. He relied upon the law laid down by this Court in a case ‘Roshen Lal Bhagat Vs. State & Anr. reported as 2005 Legal Eagle (J&K) 393’ and the ‘State of J&K Vs. Mohammad Khalil Hajam reported as 2002 Legal Eagle (J&K) 318’, to canvass his submissions. 7. Ms. Asifa Padroo, learned AAG, ex-adverso, submits that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to present himself before the Enquiry Committee but he failed to do so. Despite repeated notices issued to the petitioner he did not resume his duties. Even it took the petitioner almost nine months to reply the notice issued to him by the concerned authority. 7. Ms. Asifa Padroo, learned AAG, ex-adverso, submits that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to present himself before the Enquiry Committee but he failed to do so. Despite repeated notices issued to the petitioner he did not resume his duties. Even it took the petitioner almost nine months to reply the notice issued to him by the concerned authority. Request of petitioner was considered by the Enquiry Committee and he was asked to present himself before the Committee to clear his position and submit all the requisite documents in original, but the petitioner neither presented himself before the Committee nor submitted original documents in his defense compelling the authorities to terminate the services of the petitioners for his unauthorized absence from duty. She has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in a case Board of Directors H.P.T.C & Anr. Vs. K.C.Rahi reported as 2008(11) SCC 502 to canvass her point in support of her submissions. 8. Heard and considered. 9. The petitioner had absented from his official duties in the month of August 2004 and applied for seven days leave w.e.f, 14.08.2004 on health grounds and later on requested for extension of the same, which however, was not accepted by the respondents. The petitioner on being found on unauthorized absence was charge sheeted vide communication dated 24.02.2005, who replied thereto on 28.04.2005 explaining the allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet. 10. During enquiry, the Enquiry Committee asked the petitioner, besides providing documents/certificates, to appear in person along-with supportive documents, however, he was stated not to have appeared and the respondent- Director vide impugned order dated 01.06.2006 terminated the services of the petitioner in terms of Rule 33 of Civil Services(Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules 1956. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was a case of simple overstaying on medical leave which had to be treated as half pay leave and that the absence from duty by the petitioner was not willful but due to his health condition. It would be advantageous to quote Rule 25(1) of Civil Services(Leave Rules) 1979:- “25. It would be advantageous to quote Rule 25(1) of Civil Services(Leave Rules) 1979:- “25. Absence after expiry of leave.-(1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave a Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half-pay leave, to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave.” 12. It appears that the petitioner, who had been transferred from his place of posting to another position within the respondent-Institute, did not join at his new position and absented w.e.f. 14.08.2004 and thereafter applied for medical leave on a plea that he had fallen sick at his home which falls in Kupwara district; and that he kept on asking for extension of leave, which was not granted by the respondent-Institute. 13. There is no record as to whether the leave of the petitioner initially applied for was sanctioned, therefore, the plea of overstaying on medical leave does not arise and the plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that the overstaying of leave, initially applied for by the petitioner, should have been treated as half pay leave and the services of the petitioner should not have been dispensed with. 14. In Roshan Lal Bhagat Vs. State & Anr. reported as 2005 Legal Eagle (J&K) 393, relied upon by the learned counsel, it has been observed that the charge-sheet is only an intimation contained in letter issued by the respondents. Respondents have not framed the charges as required to be framed in terms of Rule 33 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules) 1958. It has been further observed that unless the charges are framed and served in accordance with law, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been charge sheeted and the charges have been enquired into and proved. In another case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner titled State of J&K and Ors. Vs. It has been further observed that unless the charges are framed and served in accordance with law, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been charge sheeted and the charges have been enquired into and proved. In another case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner titled State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Mohammad Khalil Hajam reported as 2002 Legal Eagle (J&K) 318, the Division Bench of this Court has held that before the services of an employee who had remained absent are brought to an end, an enquiry is to be held with a view to determine as to whether act of absence is willful or not. 15. The Supreme Court in a case titled Board of Directors, HPTC & Anr. Vs. K. C. Rahi reported as 2008(11) SCC 502 decided on 20.02.2008, has held as under:- “… In the instant case we have been taken through various documents and also from representation dated 19.10.1993 filed by the respondent himself it would clearly show that he knew that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings at his own risk. In such event plea of principle of natural justice is deemed to have been waived and he is estopped from raising the question of non-compliant of principle of natural justice. In the representation submitted by him on 19.10.1993 the subject itself reads “DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRES”. It is stated at the Bar that the respondent is a law graduate, therefore he cannot take a plea of ignorance of law. Ignorance of law is of no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate himself. For the reasons aforesaid, the High Court fell in error in re-appreciating the facts recorded by the Tribunal. The order of High Court is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is restored. The writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dismissed.” 16. The petitioner’s case is that he had applied for leave as he had fallen sick at his home place at Guzerial Kupwara and had sought extension of leave, however, respondents did not sanction the leave nor extended the same, proceeded against him for the false charge of unauthorized absence and terminated his services vide impugned order for his willful unauthorized absence from duty. Though he was entitled to be granted leave and his overstaying of the leave was also to be treated as leave and respondents were not within their rights to dispense with the services of the petitioner, without following due procedure. 17. On the other hand, respondents have defended their action for terminating the services of the petitioner for the reason that on an enquiry initiated against the petitioner for his willful absence from duty when he was transferred from one Section of the Institute to Hospital Kitchen and instead of joining to his new position, the petitioner absented himself from duty, without any authorized leave and then made up the story that he had fallen ill and without responding to the Enquiry Committee notices, sent various representations for sanction of leave. The respondents’ case is that despite several notices, petitioner did not resume his duty and had filed his reply on 25.12.2005 after a period of nine months and when the Committee asked him to furnish the original medical certificates with regard to his health and also present himself before HOD Medicines for his clinical examination, he did not respond in both the cases and after the factual enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee, the Competent Authority of the Institute, recommended for dispensing the services of the petitioner. Following the service jurisprudence, the petitioner was issued show cause notice to explain as to why his services be not dispensed with to which the petitioner again did not respond, as such, the impugned order was passed by the Director of the Institute, who holds the position of Secretary to Government and was competent to dispense with the services of the petitioner after due enquiry. 18. It appears that from the date of absence the respondents have made strenuous efforts by issuing notices to the petitioner to resume his duty through local sources at his home place and also published those notices in the daily newspapers of Kashmir, however, the petitioner did not respond the notices and sent his representations asserting therein that initially he had fallen sick at his home place and later due to earthquake of 2005 he was engaged in reconstruction of his damaged house, as such, the absence from duty was neither willful nor due to his carelessness. 19. 19. It is very strange that the employee of the prestigious and premier Health Institute of J&K i.e., SKIMS, instead of seeking medical treatment in the said Institute prefers to stay at his home place in a remote village i.e., Guzeriyal District Kupwara saying that he was seeking treatment at his home place from a local doctor. The other ground that he had raised to rebuild his house which was damaged in the earthquake of 2005, as certified by local Tehsildar, but this also seems to be not a valid ground not to resume duty in response to repeated notices sent by his employer. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents have taken considerable time, followed due process to deal with unauthorized absence of the petitioner, initially constituted a Disciplinary Committee to seek explanation from the petitioner for his absence from duty, to whose notices he did not respond and later even the competent authority of the Institute on consideration of the Disciplinary Committee report also issued notices to the petitioner to which he again did not respond and just kept on making representations without subjecting himself to medical examination as was required through HOD Medicines of the Institute and also to produce the certificates/prescriptions of his treatment in original so as to appreciate his claim. The respondents on finding the casual behavior of the petitioner and not responding to the initial notices of the Enquiry Committee and later to the show cause notice, have ultimately passed the impugned order whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated. 21. The citation produced by learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the case of the petitioner for the reason that the respondents have conducted the enquiry after affording the right of being heard to the petitioner which has been emphasized upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra). Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order sought to be quashed by the petitioner. 22. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out the case for interference with the impugned order having been passed by the competent authority after following due process of law as required under service jurisprudence. 22. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out the case for interference with the impugned order having been passed by the competent authority after following due process of law as required under service jurisprudence. Therefore, the impugned order is upheld and the writ petition filed by the petitioner, found without any merit and substance, as a result, is dismissed.