ARSHAD AHMAD Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined service of the State as Assistant Traffic Inspector in the year 1963 In due course he was confirmed on that post. On September 27, 1967 he was arrested and detained under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Ace, 1954 for alleged unlawful activities Alongside he was placed under suspension The order of suspension reads : - OFFICE OF THE DY. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER E. & T. JAMMU ORDER As repotted by D. T. I. Batote on telephone on 7 -3 -1967 confirmed by the Inspector Crime Branch Jammu Mr. Dhar on 29 -9 -1967 on telephone Shri Arshad Ahmad ATI. Banihal who has been detained under Preventive Detention Act is hereby placed under suspension with effect from the day he was arrested at Banihal. Sd./ - Dy. Transport Commissioner. E. & T. Jammu.

(2.) THE petitioner moved the Supreme Court against his detention. The Supreme Court quashed the detention and ordered his immediate release fro.11 custody on July 29. 1969 He was actually released from detention on July 31, 1969. He reported for duty on August 1, 1969. He was not, however allowed to join his duty on the plea that the question whether or not he should be retained in service, was under the active consideration of the Government; Annexure C to the petition). His subsequent -applications and representations were of no avail. There was no response. He was not even allowed to draw subsistence allowance admissible under rules Pleading that his suspension, under the circumstances was vexatious, malafide and illegal and amounted to his removal from service otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of 126 of the State Constitution, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State to reinstate him in service or, in the alternative to initiate inquiry into the charges, if any, against him and to pay subsistence allowance to him till such inquiry was completed.

(3.) IN reply the State has not disputed the facts mentioned above. It is however stated "that the action to be taken against the petitioner is being examined by the authorities as the allegations against the petitioner are of very serious nature and they require serious consideration before any action is taken. It has justified the non payment of the subsistence allowance on the ground that such payment was discretionary. The reply, it may be noted, is not supported by any affidavit