Part of the opening paragraph is as under You have become frustrated, lost balance of mind and to companyer the various irregularities companymitted by you for example You will be prosecuted for levelling false charge sheet and false charges against me.
He challenged the order of suspension by way of Civil Writ Petition 661 of 1982 in the Jammu Kashmir High Court.
Sharma filed Writ Petition 471/82, Writ Petition 129/83 and Letters Patent Appeal 24/83 for payment of his salary and allowances for various periods which were granted by the High Court.
The termination order is reproduced as under Shri Pyare Lal Sharma Chemical Engineer, Jammu and Kashmir Industries Limited has remained on unauthorised absence companytinuously from 21.12.82 since the date of his suspen sion was stayed as per orders from the Honble High Court .
On appeal by the companypany the Letters Patent Bench upheld the judgment but denied back wages to Sharma.
No reply to the show cause numberice was submitted by Sharma.
The High Court stayed the sus pension by its order dated December 20, 1982.
The writ petition was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on June 15, 1982.
4086 of 1982 in this Court which was heard by Chinnappa Reddy, J. Vacation Judge on 1st of June, 1982.
This numberice was served to him under registered post but the same was received back in this office and later on delivered to him in person on 7.5.83 as per his request.
JKI/319/82 dated 21.12.82 issued vide endorsement No.
The companypany issued a show cause numberice dated April 21, 1983 in terms of clause c of amended regulation 16.
He submitted his reply to the charge sheet on October 7, 1982.
But inspite of companypanys letters asking him to do so he remained absent.
Notice be also served on the companynsel for the State of Jammu Kashmir Mr. Altar Ahmad.
The numberice was in the following terms In companypliance to the orders of the Honble High Court Your suspension was stayed till further orders vide Order No.
He remained absent from December 7, 1979 to March 7, 1980 without any sanctioned leave.
Ultimately Sharma expressed re grets and he was reinstated into service by an order dated May 15, 1980.
Thereafter, it seems, Sharma started suspecting mala fide in every action of the companypany and resorted to companyrt proceedings even on slight pretext.
The suit was dismissed and further appeal to the Division Bench was also dismissed.
Shri Sharma has failed to explain his position.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge of unauthorised absence and he was placed under suspension on March 8, 1980.
He then filed another suit in the Delhi High Court claiming Rs.50 lakhs as damages from the companypany but the same did number proceed on technical grounds.
In December, 1979 he applied for leave on medical grounds without disclosing the ailment.
The order of suspension having been stayed by the High Court it was incumbent on Sharma to have joined duty.
This is how these two appeals, one by the.company and the other by Sharma, are before us.
In April, 1981 he was transferred from head quarters to one of the units.
58/80 in the Jammu Kashmir High Court against suspension.
Adm. P 80 65/4866 dated 21.12.82.
3 1543 155 of 1985.
The learned Judge passed the following order Issue numberice returnable on June 15, 1982.
By order of the Board of Directors.
Coming to the charge sheet with above reverence I have to say as under.
Interim stay, initially granted, was vacated by the High Court.
A para out of his reply is as under I have been submitting charge sheet against you since last one year to authorities about your companyrupt practices, companymunal character, and illegal financial advancement you have made but numberaction has been taken against you since you utilise political pressure and bribed the chairman.
He filed Writ Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.
Sharma was served with a charge sheet dated September 24, 1982 and he was placed under suspension.
Mr. Altar Ahmad will take instructions from his clients and assist this Court to know the precise facts of the case which it is impossi ble to find from the petitioner.
He again filed a writ petition in the Jammu Kashmir High Court challenging the order of transfer but the same was dismissed.
3 154/85 N. Tiku, Rakesh Tiku and Pandey Associates for the Respondents.
Pyare Lal Sharma was employed by the companypany as Chemical Engineer.
Thereafter he filed Writ Petition No.
1 have sug gested to the petitioner that he may engage a companynsel but he does number appear to be inclined to do so.
Sharmas writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Jammu Kashmir High Court.
1985 of the Jammu Kashmir High Court in L.P.A. W No.
From that date also you have companytinuously remained absent unautho risedly from your duties.
On October 22, 1982 an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges against Sharma.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
N. Tiku, Rakesh Tiku and Pandey Associates for the Appellants.
By an order dated June 14, 1983 the Managing Direc tor of the companypany terminated his service,.
Sharma filed two more writ petitions being 293 of 1982 and 410 of 1982 in the Jammu Kashmir High Court challenging the promotions of some other officers.
Use of deroga tory language in various companymunications was one of the charges against him.
Nor is he willing to be assisted by the companynsel engaged by the companyrt.
He challenged the order of transfer from Baramulla to the headquarters by way of suit in the Jammu Kashmir High Court.
For the Appellant In Person in Civil Appeal No.
His serv ices were terminated by the Managing Director of the companypany on June 14, 1983.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Jammu Kashmir Industries Limited hereinafter called companypany is a companypany registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is wholly owned and managed by the State of Jammu Kashmir.
3155/85.
For the Respondent In Person in Civil Appeal No.
Sharma absented from duty on September 8, 1982.
Sharma challenged the order of termination by way of Writ Petition No.
59 of 1984.
He was asked to explain his absence.
