Altaf Hussain Wani vs State & Ors.

Impugned order of termination of services of the petitioner emanates from the alleged production of a fake diploma certificate by him before his

employer, respondent No. 2. The stance so disclosed in the impugned order of termination having been vehemently denied, it was deemed

appropriate to direct the respondents to produce the above questioned diploma certificate before the Court but of no avail despite several

opportunities. Consequent upon such failure, parties were heard and writ petition was admitted to hearing which has come up for final hearing

today. Counter has not been filed leaving no option for the respondents but to rely on the record which is produced but without alleged fake

diploma certificate. That being so, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation of production of fake certificate by the

petitioner is a camouflage, attracts credence which is further substantiated by undisputed facts borne by record itself revealing that the petitioner

was initially engaged as a daily wager in the year 1987, whose services were regularized along with others as helper vide order No. 87898814

dated 28021997 followed by his promotion to the post of Time Keeper vide order No. 68488 dated 19042003. Perusal of the order of

regularization of the petitioner makes it very clear that he was regularized along with others on the strength of length of service put in by him in the

department as a daily wager and not on the basis of diploma certificate. Fact of the matter is that diploma certificate is absolutely no requirement.

Moreso, even an indepth examination of the record does not extend any support to the stance disclosed by the respondents, for, there is no

document which would make requirement of diploma certificate a condition precedent for entry into the department as a daily wager. Thus

petitioner's termination being based on an unfounded ground, petition is bound to succeed. It is allowed. Impugned order of termination is quashed

which shall be treated non est. As a corollary, petitioner shall get salary/arrears for the period he was forced to be off the scene which shall be

released in his favour. Disposed of along with CMPs.

Before parting with it needs to be placed on record that respondents have made an abortive attempt to justify the order of termination on the

ground of availability of power flowing from rule 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1956

least appreciating that before exercising such punitive power, procedure established by law has to be strictly adhered to, which is wanting in the

case on hand and the breach of rules being manifest, learned counsel for the petitioner has staked a claim for exemplary costs to be imposed on the

respondent concerned. Responding to the submission, Mr. Dar has made reference to certain orders to canvass that the order of termination was

passed by respondent No.2 in pursuance of the directions from the higher authorities. Considering the contentions in totality of the circumstances,

there shall be no order as to costs, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.