Absence period settlement in accordance with service rules does not warrant Tribunal interference.

The applicant, Shabir Ahmad Mir, initially appointed as an Assistant Compiler and currently serving as a Senior Compiler in the District Fund Office, Ganderbal, sought directions for the respondents to settle his period of absence from December 27, 2018, to November 27, 2019, according to the recommendations of an Enquiry Committee, and to release his salary for the said period

The applicant claimed that he continuously discharged his duties without interruption and regularly marked his attendance

He asserted that he was authorized by Respondent No. 3 to procure stationery and office supplies from Jammu

The applicant previously filed SWP No. 174/2019 and CM No. 7925/2019 with the Hon'ble High Court of J&K for the release of his salary, and on October 18, 2019, the High Court directed the respondents to consider releasing his legitimate unpaid salary

Despite this order, the respondents did not settle the disputed absence period or release the salary

The respondents, however, contended that the Original Application had become infructuous as the competent authority had already made a final decision

An Inquiry Committee, constituted on January 14, 2022, investigated the alleged unauthorized absence

This committee, after examining records, recommended on November 4, 2022, that the absence period be treated as leave of the kind due

Subsequently, on May 2, 2023, Order No. CAO/DFO/Gbl of 30 was issued, treating 300 days (December 27, 2018, to October 22, 2019) as Earned Leave and the remaining 36 days (October 23, 2019, to November 27, 2019) as leave

This order was partially modified on August 2, 2023, treating the remaining 36 days as Half Pay Leave

The respondents stated that the absence period was settled, and salary drawn accordingly

The Inquiry Report also stated that the applicant was relieved from the AO GP Fund Migrant Cell Jammu on April 27, 2019, morning

1. Whether the period of absence of the applicant from December 27, 2018, to November 27, 2019, was erroneously treated as leave of the kind due, despite his claim of continuous duty

2. Whether the orders issued by the competent authority to settle the absence period and release salary pursuant to the Enquiry Committee's recommendations were arbitrary, illegal, or procedurally infirm, warranting interference by the Tribunal

The court primarily applied the administrative procedures and service rules governing the regularization of absence periods for government employees

The decision was based on the recommendations of an officially constituted Inquiry Committee

The competent authority regulated the absence period in accordance with applicable service rules

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claim of continuous duty against the findings of the Inquiry Committee.

The applicant presented attendance sheets and argued that his case was similar to a colleague, Ab Majid Bhat, whose suspension period was regularized.

However, the Tribunal observed that the order concerning Ab Majid Bhat did not directly correspond to or cover the applicant's disputed period.

The respondents, conversely, demonstrated that a committee was explicitly formed to inquire into the applicant’s alleged unauthorized absence, and based on its recommendations, the absence period was settled as Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave.

The Inquiry Report indicated that the applicant had been relieved from his office on April 27, 2019, contradicting his attendance records.

The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order resulted from due consideration of the material and an inquiry, lacking evidence of factual error, mistaken identity, or misapplication of mind as alleged by the applicant.

The regulation of the absence period strictly adhered to applicable service rules.

It held that the absence period from December 27, 2018, to November 27, 2019, was duly settled according to the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee and applicable service rules

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application

concluding that no grounds for interference were established as the decisions were not arbitrary, illegal, or procedurally infirm

The salary due to the applicant had already been drawn and released following the settlement of the absence period