STATE Vs. KRISHEN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON proof of the charges of corruption, the services of the plaintiff -respondent were terminated vide Govt. order No, 26 -GR of 1978 dated 31.11.1978. The writ petitition No. 413 of 1978 filed by the petitioner is stated to have been disposed of with the observations that the authority concerned shall make available to the petitioner the copies of the proceedings before he is - called upon to show cause against the proposed punishment. The petitioner filed another writ petition No. 23 of 1978 for quashing the order impugned therein as according to him it was bad in law in view of the judgment of this court reported in 1975 JKLR 741; as no copies of the proceedings were allegedly given to the plaintiff enabling him to represent his case before the defendant. This writ petition was also dismissed by a Single Bench and the LP.A. filed was dismissed by the Division Bench with the observations that the order of the court will not prevent the plaintiff respondent from pursuing any other remedy which may be available to him under law. The respondent thereafter filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the Govt. Order No. 26 -GR of 1978 dated 31.1.1978 was illegal with a consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the appellant state to give all benefits and emoluments to the plaintiff as if he was in service. The suit was resisted on various grounds including the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial court on 19.2.1981. 1. Whether the plaintiff was serving as senior assistant in the office of commandant Home Guards and dismissed from service on a complaint of corruption addressed to the anti -corruption organization on 14.3.1974 against facts and law?POPP

(2.) WHETHER the Vigilance Department 0& M issued a notice to the plaintiff to show cause as to why the proposed punishment be not imposed on him and he did not receive the copies of the proceedings of the case and it was mandatory under law? OPP

(3.) DID the plaintiff approach the Deputy Secretary 0 and M for supply of the said copies and in registered envelope received by then Commandant Home Guards the letter contained papers regarding Sh. Ghulam Hussain Gujjari (Ex -Deputy Secretary Legislative Council)? OPP