IRSHAD AHMED MASOODI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a junior Agricultural Assistant (JAA), was dismissed from service by Order NO. 1019 -GR of 1990 dated 26.10.1990 in exercise of the powers under Sec. 126(2)(c) of the State Constitution by the Governor. He questions this order amongst others on the ground that it suffered from non -application of mind and that it was vitiated as it was not a speaking order since the respondents had failed to indicate the nature of activities to him. It is also submitted that the action is violative of the constitutional guarnatees and against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the competent authority after due application of mind had formed the opinion to remove the petitioner from service in view of the petitioners nature of activities which were detrimental and prejudicial to the security of the State. It is also pointed out that he was arrested in case FIR No.3 of 1990 under Sec. 3/4 TADA 3 EAO Act, and that it was not expendient to hold an inquiry against him. It is not indicated whether any circumstances existed which made it inexpedient to hold an inquiry against him.

(3.) IT is beaten law by now that the Constitution provides certain guarantees and safeguards to an employee who is a member of the civil service or holds a civil post under the state. He cannot be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by any authority subordinate to the appointing authority without an inquiry in which he is informed of the charge against him and is afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of such charges. These safeguards are contained in Art. 311 of the Federal Constitution and Sec. 126 of the State Constitution. The later section provides an additional safeguard of giving a second show cause notice to the delinquent employee informing him of the punishment proposed to be imposed upon him.