GH MOHD HURRAH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1 -6 -1989 we had permitted the counsel for the respondents to the written submissions within two week. Written submissions have not been filed even after the expiry of that time. On 25 -/ -1989 when the matter came up for hearing, we reserved the case for judgment.

(2.) WE heard learned counsel for the petitioner and to some extent learned counsel for the otherside also but respondents complete arguments could not be heard because we were assured that written submissions will be submitted. At the time of commencement of the arguments it was submitted that the writ petition could be decided one way or the other at the threshold.

(3.) PETITIONER challenges the order dated 29 -11 -1988 in so far as it relates to him whereby he has been placed under suspension on account of his being involved in FIR No : 24/84 -P/S Vigilance Organisation under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 409, 467. 468 read with section 120 -B RPC. The order or suspension issued in pursuance of sub -rule I of Rule 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 read with General Departments instructions issued under No: D (Adm) 184/78 -1V dated 1 -9 -1988. Petitioner seeks a further writ of mandamus to allow him to discharge the duties. Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit also to challenge the impugned order of suspension. The facts lie in brief compass: