Termination for unauthorized absence is unsustainable if the Enquiry Officer is appointed before considering the delinquent employee's written defense.

The applicants, six Medical Officers/Assistant Surgeons in the J Health Department, were selected for higher/super-specialty courses

They applied for study leave through the proper channel; however, the competent authority failed to sanction or reject their requests for a considerable period

To avoid cancellation of admissions, the applicants submitted departure reports and joined their respective courses

In 2019, the respondents issued show-cause notices for unauthorized absence

Although the applicants submitted written defenses on February 27, 2020, the respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer on February 28, 2020, before considering their replies

On September 25, 2020, the respondents issued Govt. Order No. 743-JK(HME) terminating the applicants' services without providing a copy of the enquiry report or a second show-cause notice

The applicants challenged the termination and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer as violative of natural justice and statutory rules

1. Whether the appointment of the Enquiry Officer prior to the consideration of the applicants' written statements of defense was in violation of Rule 33 of the J Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1956

2. Whether the termination order is sustainable in law given the alleged violations of the principles of natural justice and Rule 34 of the CCA Rules

3. Whether the action of the respondents was discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in light of more lenient treatment granted to similarly situated doctors

Rule 33 of the JK Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956, which mandates that the disciplinary authority must consider the delinquent official's reply before deciding to initiate a formal enquiry

Rule 34 of the CCA Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which necessitate a reasonable opportunity of defense, including the supply of the enquiry report and a show-cause notice before imposing major penalties

Principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, prohibiting arbitrary and discriminatory state action among similarly situated employees

The Tribunal observed that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer on February 28, 2020, was "mechanical and premature" as it occurred before the applicants' defense replies could be considered, violating the procedural mandate of Rule 33

furthermore, the enquiry was found to be fundamentally flawed because it was conducted ex-parte; the applicants were never summoned, given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, or allowed to lead evidence

The Tribunal emphasized that the non-supply of the enquiry report before termination constituted a "serious infirmity" and a breach of Rule 34, as it deprived the applicants of their right to challenge factual errors or procedural lapses

Finally, the Tribunal found the respondents' actions discriminatory, noting that six other doctors who also proceeded for higher studies without prior sanction were permitted to resume duties via Govt. Order No. 744, while the applicants were singled out for the "severest civil consequence" of termination without a rational basis

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashing Govt. Order No. 743-JK(HME) of 2020 (termination) and Govt. Order No. 221-JK(HME) of 2020 (appointment of Enquiry Officer)

The respondents were directed to: (a) reinstate the applicants within 12 weeks; (b) consider regularizing the period of absence in line with similarly situated doctors via a speaking order within three months; and (c) grant all consequential benefits, while the issue of back wages is to be considered based on actual facts

The respondents retain the right to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the law