Serial No. 33 Regular Cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA No. 49/2025 in WP(C) No. 396/2025 Abdul Khaliq Malik ….. Appellant/petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Suhail Mehraj, Advocate V/s UT of J&K and Ors. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE (ORDER) 14.05.2025 01. This intra Court appeal filed by the appellant Abdul Khaliq Malik is directed against an order and Judgment dated 28.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“writ Court”] in WP(C) No. 396/2025 titled Abdul Khaliq Malik Vs. UT of J&K and Ors., whereby, the writ petition of the appellant has been dismissed. 02. Briefly put the facts leading to filing of this appeal are that vide Order No. WC/119 dated 29.04.2003 passed by the Principal, Government College for Women, M. A. Road, Srinagar, the appellant came to be engaged as Local Fund Employee on consolidated wages of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The initial engagement of the appellant was for a Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document period of 60 days, which, however, came to be extended from time to time. 03. Undoubtedly, the appellant being a Local Fund Employee also figures in the seniority list of Local Fund candidates, engaged in the department of Higher Education from time to time in Kashmir Division. In the year 2024, a written complaint came to be filed by a girl inmate of Government College for Women Girls Hostel against the appellant that the appellant had subjected her to sexual harassment, which led to registration of FIR No. 69/2024 dated 29.11.2024 in the Police Station Kothi Bagh, Srinagar for commission of offences under Sections 74 and 75 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The matter also came to be considered in an emergency meeting by the College Hostel Committee on 29.11.2024. The complainant and the appellant herein, were heard by the Committee along with other witnesses. The statements were recorded and the Committee unanimously recommended the expulsion of the appellant from the Hostel till the completion of the enquiry. The College handed over the matter to the Committee against the sexual harassment (CASH/ICC) to investigate the matter. The Cash/ICC also provided an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appellant could not provide any satisfactory explanation for his uncalled-for behaviour. The Committee recorded the statements of complainant and her witness and found the allegations and testimonies credible and consistent. It is on the basis of enquiry conducted, the CASH/ICC, unanimously recommended a stern action against the appellant. Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 04. Before taking an appropriate action against the appellant, the College also gave an opportunity to the appellant to defend and respond to the allegations. The appellant, however, failed to defend his case. Taking stock of the entire happening and the evidence that had come before the CASH/ICC, the competent Authority decided to disengage the services of the appellant in the larger interest of students. Accordingly, the order, which was impugned before the writ Court was passed. 05. Feeling aggrieved of his disengagement, the appellant filed WP(C) No. 396/2025, and challenged his disengagement primarily on the ground that the disengagement was without affording him an opportunity of being heard and therefore, violative of principles of natural justice. 06. The writ Court considered the entire issue and came to the conclusion that the appellant was only a temporary/Local paid employee and had been given an adequate opportunity to defend the allegation. The writ Court found no merit in the aforesaid petition filed by the appellant and dismissed the same. 07. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the writ Court, the appellant has filed this appeal primarily on the ground that no departmental enquiry giving the appellant an adequate opportunity to defend his case has been conducted by the respondents before passing the disengagement order and that the writ Court has failed to appreciate the matter in correct perspective. 08. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Judgment passed by the writ Court is well reasoned and the view taken by the writ Court is unexceptional. Admittedly, the appellant does not hold a civil post in the Government of UT of J&K. He was only a Local Fund Employee, engaged on consolidated salary. The initial engagement of the appellant was for a period of 60 days, which, however, came to be extended from time to time. During his working as a Local Fund /temporary employee, the appellant indulged in misconduct, in that, a serious complaint was made by a girl inmate of the Hostel against him, which complaint was supported by another girl, who stood as witness to what had happened to her colleague. 09. True it is that before disengaging the appellant on the alleged misconduct it was incumbent upon the respondents to give an adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend himself and respond to the allegation made by the complainant. 10. In the instant case, not only the appellant was heard by the Hostel Committee, but the appellant was also heard in person and given opportunity to defend by the CASH/Internal Complaint Committee of the College. Even before issuing disengagement order, the College also provided an opportunity to the appellant to respond to the allegations. The appellant, however, chose not to contest the allegations before the authority. In these circumstances, the respondents were left with no option but to disengage the services of the appellant in the larger interest of the Institution and the girl students, living in the Girls Hostel. The plea of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been condemned Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document unheard is contrary to the fact situation obtaining in the case. Obviously, the appellant not being a holder of civil post in the State was not entitled to protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. He was only a temporary employee being paid consolidated wages out of the Local Fund and thus was liable to be disengaged at any time. In the instant case, the appellant has been disengaged for good reasons that too after affording him fair opportunity of hearing. No formal departmental enquiry was required for the reason that the appellant being a ‘Local Fund Employee’ was not holding any civil post under the State, entitling him to the protection available to civil servants under Article 311 of Constitution of India. He was entitled only to be heard before passing the order of his disengagement which requirement has been amply complied with in the case of appellant. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal, same is accordingly, dismissed. However, nothing said hereinabove shall prejudice the appellant in any manner in the trial, which is pending before the court of competent jurisdiction. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 14.05.2025 “Mohammad Yasin Dar” Whether the ORDER is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Yaseen Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document