AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner was employed as a temporary watcher in the Soil conservation Division National Highway, Batote. By an order dated 921971,
Divisional Forest officer, discharged him from service on the ground that he had unauthorisedly overstayed leave The order of discharge was
passed in the absence of the petitioner as all efforts to serve him failed. Thus petitioner appealed to the Conservator of Forests, Soil Conservation,
Srinagar. His case was that he had been taken ill and could not, therefore, join his duties after the expiry of leave He produced a medical certificate
in support of his claim. The Conservator of Forests, did not feel impressed by the certificate but all the sate taking a lenient view he allowed the
appeal and reinstated the petitioner, on the lower post of a Mali. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
order as void, illegal and without jurisdiction.
The Conservator of Forests discarded the certificate on three grounds: Firstly, as he puts it, because the certificate had been obtained at the end
of long absence Secondly, because it had been issued by a private practitioner. thirdly, because the petitioner had not got himself treated in a
recognized hospital.
3, The argument of the learned counsels for the petitioner is that the Conservator of forests should not have discarded the certificate without first
obtaining the explanation of the petitioner as regards the circumstances mentioned above He urged that the petitioner had a satisfactory explanation
to offer and in any event, he had a right to explain these circumstances., I think he is right The petitioner had a right to explain why he had consulted
a private practitioner and not made any effort to get treatment from a recognized hospital and why the certificate was produced by him at a late
stage, Mis explanation deserved consideration for whatever worth it was. There is nothing on tries record to show that the Conservator of Forests
ever asked the petitioner to furnish such explanation. In the circumstances, the' order vitiated on the ground that the Conservator of Forests did not
obtain any explanation from the petitioner as regards the grounds on which be proposed to reject the medical certificate. It need hardly be
emphasized that the I certificate had a vita bearing on the result of the case inasmuch as in accordance with article 128 of the C.S.R. ill health is a
good ground for condonation in case of unauthorised absence from duty, whether such absence is without leave or after the end of leave.
The result, therefore, is that the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The conservator of Forests, Soil Conservation Circle, Srinagar, is directed
to rehear the appeal and pass fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. The parties shall bear their own
costs.