NAZIR AHMAD DAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a tax collector in Notified Area Committee, Badgam, was dismissed from service by the orders of the Governor under Sec. 126 (2 -c) of the State Constitution vide order No. 542 -GR of 1990 dated 16.3.1990. He has called this order in question on the ground that it had been passed in colourable exercise of power and the satisfaction assumed is dehors the relevant record and without any basis.

(2.) NO counter has been filed by the respondents to resist the petition. They have also failed to produce any record in support of the decision that it was inexpedient to hold the inquiry in the matter.

(3.) PETITIONERS case is that he proceeded on earned leave from 5.10.1988 and had to apply for its extension due to some ailment suffered by him which was diagnosed as "disk prolapse". He, however, resumed his duties on 1.8.1989 in compliance to the orders of respondent NO.3 but was charged with unauthorised absence which he explained and the proceedings against him were dropped. He thereafter discharged his duties with usual devotion and dedication till 4th April 1990 when the impugned order dated 16th March, 1990, was passed dismissing him from service. The order is extracted hereunder: "Whereas the Governor is satisfied that the conduct and activities of Shri Nazir Ahmad Dar son of Shri Mohammad Akbar Dar resident of Hyderpora, Tax Collector, Notified Area Committee, Badgam, are detrimental and prejudicial to the security of the State; and And whereas the Governor is further satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold an inquiry under Section 126 (2 -c) of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, against the said Shri Nazir Ahmad Dar; Therefore, the Governor in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir hereby dismissed Shri Nazir Ahmad Dar, Tax Collector, Notified Area Committee, Badgam, from service with immediate effect. By order of the Governor". Mr. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the order on the ground that it was devoid of any reasons which had led to the Governors satisfaction that it was inexpedient to hold the inquiry against the petitioner in the interests of the security of the State. He contended that there was no material or basis on which the Governor could have reached such satisfaction interms of Sec. 126 (2 -c) of the State Constitution. He referred to and relied upon Tulsi Rams case -1985 (3) SCC 398 and AIR 1987 SC 2106 and urged that it was obligatory on the respondents to disclose the reasons and the material supporting the Governors conclusion that it was not expedient to hold the inquiry against the petitioner in the interests of the security of the State.