RIAS AHMAD GAZI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by Govt. Order No. 1586 -GD of 1985 dated 15 -10 -985 purported to have been passed under clause (c) of the proviso to sub -sec: (2) of Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking its being quashed with a further direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in service as if no order of dismissal was ever passed against him. He has also claimed the payment of all emoluments and benefits to which he is entitled under law. According to him the petitioner was appointed as Tracer on 1 -7 -1975 in the civil Investigation and Designs wing.power Dev. Deptt. Srinagar He continued to work as Tracer till 1984 when the said post was converted to the post of Junior Assistant. Petitioner was detained under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act by the orders of District Magistrate dated 3rd April, 1985. The order of detention, which according to the petitioner, had been issued on illegal, improper and untenable grounds, was quashed by this court vide its order dated 5th June, 1985, The petitioner claims to be a law abiding citizen of the State who has never indulged in any activity which may be termed to be prejudicial to the security of the State. The order of dismissal, now impugned in the writ petition, being in violation of the constitutional guarantees, is alleged to be against law and liable to be quashed.

(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that as per reports of the CID Department, the petitioner associated himself with activities, which were secessionist and anti -national in character. As per CID diaries he happened to be the member of Islamic welfare orgainsation and came to be associated with the other organisations called liberation Organisation The aforesaid orgainsations had come to be set up to propagate for the liberation of the state and its secession from the Indian Union The petitioner was kept under watch right from 1983 and at various points of time was found to be associated with working out plans of sabotage and sub -version, which had the potential of endangering the security of the State. The petitioner came to be detained under the public Safety Act and released by this Court on technical grounds as the detention orders passed by the District Magistrate failed short of meeting requirements of law. This Court did not go into the merits of the allegations and the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner Even after the release, the petitioner persistently indulged in activities pre -judicial to security of the state and maintenance of public order. He maintained a close contact with the communal organisations like Peoples league and Liberation Front. The petitioner participated in activities leading even to the use of explosives with a view to create disturbances and with the object of bringing about a secession of the State from the Indian Union. On the basis of the reports of the CID Department, the Director General of Police put up a note to the then Chief Minister making reference to the material indicating the involvement of the petitioner and some other employees in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and Police order. The dismissal of the petitioner was recommended, on the basis of the recommendations of the Director General of Police, the then Chief Minister put up a memorandum before His Excellency the Governor stating inter -alia that the Government had considered the reports of the Police Department and the material furnished pointing to the petitioners as also some other employees, involvement in activities which had potentially endangered the security of the State and recommended that the petitioner and some other employees, should be dismissed from service in terms of Sub -Section (2) of section 126 of the constitution of the State The recommendation was accepted by the Governor upon which order impugned was passed,

(3.) IN his rejoinder the petitioner has denied the allegations made in the counter affidavit, and has given the details of his arrest and detention.