KABIR DIN Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government Order No. 362-GAD of 2007 dated 02.04.2007, has been issued by Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu - respondent no. 2, as per the decision of the Governor of the J&K State in terms of Proviso(c) to Subsection (2) of Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, dismissing petitioner's services. Aggrieved, petitioner has knocked at portals of this Court with writ petition on hand.

(2.) Petitioner's grievance is that impugned order does not furnish any explanation or furnish reasons to justify dispensation of inquiry more particularly when there was no material before competent authority warranting issuance of order impugned inasmuch as it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He had been placed under preventive detention under J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, for his alleged involvement in heinous offences and his activities were said to be anti-national and against security of J&K State. Besides, case FIR no. 4/2005 and no. 39/2006 for commission of offence(s) under various provisions of Ranbir Penal Code, are said to have also been registered against him. Petitioner earlier also made a bid by filing a writ petition, being SWP No. 493/2007. He challenged therein the Cabinet decision. But, in a while, he withdrew said writ petition.

(3.) Order impugned, as is contended by learned counsel petitioner, has been passed by the Governor of the State on the ground that in the interest of security of the State it was not expedient to hold an inquiry in the matter. But, though he was discharged by competent court of law in one of FIRs, therefore, in view of the finding with regard to that, it was allegedly not possible/expedient to hold an inquiry in the matter, is, according to petitioner, far away from the truth as the same is based on wrong information. The order impugned, to the saying of petitioner, is in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Alleged unlawful/anti-national activities in which petitioner was shown as accused, are said to have either been dropped or petitioner set free honourably by trial court due to lack of evidence connecting him with the anti-national activities. It is alleged that the order impugned is based on the mala fide intention of the respondents. For buttressing his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner cites Ghulam Mustaffa v. State of J&K DIG Jammu, (1997) Legal Eagle (J&K) 94 ; Abdul Rashid Lone v. State and Ors., 2011 (2) JKJ 70 [HC] ; G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and anr., AIR (2006) SC 2129 ; Malook Khan v. State and Ors., 2011 (1) JKJ 31 [HC] .