In a significant ruling, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by Pervaz Ahmad Parra, who sought to overturn a previous judgment upholding his termination from service due to a prolonged unauthorized absence. The court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar, concluded that the review petition lacked merit and found no reason to reconsider the previous decision.
Background of the Case
Pervaz Ahmad Parra, who served as a Cashier in the Government Treasury, Bandipora, went on leave on August 20, 1992, but failed to return to duty for an astonishing 12 years. He reappeared in 2004, claiming that his prolonged absence was due to mental illness, as evidenced by medical prescriptions and certificates from a psychiatrist. In response, the government initiated disciplinary proceedings, eventually terminating his services in April 2009 through Order No. 162-Acctts of 2009.
Parra challenged his termination through a writ petition (SWP No. 1141/2009), arguing that the termination was unlawful due to the absence of a formal chargesheet, non-compliance with Article 311 of the Indian Constitution, and the failure to provide subsistence allowance during his suspension. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the court on May 17, 2019.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues in this case revolved around:
1. The Validity of the Termination: Parra contended that his termination was invalid as it was issued without a formal chargesheet and violated constitutional protections under Article 311.
2. Mental Health Considerations: Parra claimed that his mental illness, which was allegedly the cause of his prolonged absence, should have been adequately considered under the J&K Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1998, particularly Section 36.
3. Procedural Lapses: Parra argued that the inquiry process was flawed and that the termination was issued by an incompetent authority.
Court’s Decision
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing the review petition, made several important observations:
– The court acknowledged that the inquiry officer’s report mentioned Parraโs mental health issues but noted that the petitioner had not provided a disability certificate from a medical board to substantiate his claim. The court highlighted that the documents provided were merely a psychiatrist’s prescription, insufficient to prove that Parraโs mental condition justified a 12-year absence from duty.
– The court also noted that while the petitioner cited the Supreme Courtโs judgment in Geetaben Ratilal Patel vs. District Primary Education Officer (2013) 7 SCC 182, the facts of that case were distinguishable from Parraโs situation. Specifically, in Patel’s case, the employee had a certified disability from a medical board, which Parra lacked.
– On the issue of review jurisdiction, the court emphasized that a review cannot be sought on the grounds of an erroneous legal interpretation unless it involves an apparent error on the face of the record, which was not found in this case. The court stated, “Simply because a Judge has gone wrong in law, that is not a ground for review, though it may be a ground for appeal.”
Also Read
The petitioner, Pervaz Ahmad Parra, was represented by Mr. G. A. Lone, while the respondents, including the State of Jammu & Kashmir, were represented by Mr. Hakeem Aman Ali, Deputy Advocate General. The case was registered under RP No. 33/2019 in the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court.
