Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, June 8: The High Court has upheld the termination order of an employee who was evading the implementation order of his transfer by observing that he cannot claim to remain at a particular place or at a particular post of his choice.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the plea of Tariq Ahmad Pathan appointed as pharmacist in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) challenging the order of his termination from the services due to his unauthorized absence.
He was ordered to be transferred from Uri Power Station to Nimmo Bazgo HE Project, Leh but he challenged the order on the grounds of his health condition and the court directed that he be allowed to continue at his present place of posting till his medical check-up is done.
On the court directions the delinquent official was subjected to medical check-up by the Medical Board and it was found that no abnormality in his health, whereafter, the NHPC authorities issued his relieving order from Uri Power and he was directed to report to the Chief Engineer, Nimmo Bazgo HE Project Leh.
Instead of joining at new place of posting, he applied for leave on medical grounds which was granted to him and was subsequently extended from time to time.
On completion of the leave he did not join back to his duties compelling the authorities to seek explanation for his absence from duty despite the expiry of leave period, which after inquiry has culminated into termination of his services on account of absence in order to avoid his transfer.
Justice Dhar after having a view on all facts and conduct of the delinquent officials for not accepting his transfer said the conduct of the petitioner has been defiant and obstinate, inasmuch as, he has refused to comply with the order of transfer which is an incident of service.
“It is not the case of the petitioner that his services were not transferable, therefore, he could not claim to remain at a particular place or at a particular post. Once the petitioner accepted the appointment with the respondents, he had to follow the administrative discipline and obey the transfer orders”, the Court said.
It has further been added that instead of following the administrative order, he, on one pretext or the other, avoided joining a new place of posting which was inconvenient to him. The petitioner could not claim to remain in service of the respondents at his own terms.
“By not submitting himself to the Rules and Regulations applicable to an employee, the petitioner has exposed himself to the charge of unauthorized absence and, therefore, he has rightly been held guilty of the said charge which has resulted in termination of his service and there is no fault with the impugned action of the respondent-NHPC. 31 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition”, Court concluded.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
