STATE OF J&K Vs. RAJ MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of three Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the State of Jammu & Kashmir, Inspector General of Police, Commandant, J&K Armed Police, Jammu, Superintendent of police, Poonch etc. against the three judgments delivered by a Single Judge of this court Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh J. on January 8, 1970. These appeals arise out of writ petition Nos. 37, 38 and 50 instituted by Nazir Hussain, Raj Mohd and others, and Mohammad Majid constables. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that the respondents were appointed as constables by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu but were ultimately dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, Poonch. The legal and constitutional grounds taken in the writ petitions, apart from the factual were, that as the petitioners -respondents were appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu, they could not be dismissed by the Superintendent of Police, who was an authority subordinate to the D. I. G. Police ; and secondly that they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard ; the orders of dismissal, therefore, violated the principles of natural justice ; that there was a discrimination between the respondents and others similarly situated. The respondents therefore prayed for the quashing of the order of the Superintendent of Police, Poonch, in writ petition No. 37 of 1969 order No. 191 of 1966 dated 3 -3 -1966 and D. O. No. 538 -CS dated 3 -4 -1969; in writ petition No. 38 Order No. 95 of 1966 dated 25 -1 -1966 and D. O. No. 538 -CS dated 3 -4 -1969, and in writ petition No. 50 Order No. 271 of 1966 dated 8 -4 -1968 and D. O. No. 538 -CS dated 3 -4 -1969.

(2.) THE learned Judge who heard these petitions issued writs in all the three cases on 8 -1 -1970 relying on a previous decision of his dated

(3.) -5 -1969 in writ petitions Nos. 168 and 169 of 1969 Mohammad Maqbool & ors Vs. State holding that the Superintendent of Police was not competent to issue the orders of dismissal of the respondents when they had been appointed by the D.I.G. and further that the respondents had not been given an opportunity to defend themselves as envisaged under section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. Against these orders of the learned Single Judge which are all dated 8th of January 1970, the present appeals have been filed. 3. The appeals came up before a Division Bench of this court which by means of its order dated 17 -12 -1970 felt that important points of the interpretation of the Constitution were involved in these cases and a judicial pronouncements on the point of the various courts were not uniform, referred it to the Full Bench.