S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WHETHER the satisfaction of the Governor (with regard to the inexpediency of holding an enquiry in the interest of the security of the State) under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India, is essentially subjective in nature and consequently non -justiciable, is the primarily significant question before this Bench, stemming from the widespread police agitation in the State of Punjab in May, 1979, which later spilled over and engulfed large parts of the country.
(2.) THE facts in this set of three writ petitions are virtually identical and neither in serious dispute nor in a wide compass. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that this judgment will govern all of them and further that a reference to the averments in Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab C.W.P. No. 2483 of 1979, amply suffices. At the very beginning, it may be noticed that this writ petition is now confined only to Petitioner No. 1, Gurdial Singh, who claims a long tenure of service with the police force and having held the post of Assistant Sub -Inspector for about seven years. It is averred that there has been an agitation by the police officials in the various parts of the State of Punjab and at the material time, he was posted at Sangrur and it is claimed that he did not participate either actively or otherwise in the police agitation. However, in guarded terms it is also averred that even assuming that the Petitioner did participate in the peaceful agitation, the same could not be a ground for any adverse action against him. Nevertheless, it is alleged that by the order of the Governor dated May 19, 1979 (Annexure P/l), the Petitioner has been removed from service in exercise of the power under Article 311(2)(c) without affording him any reasonable opportunity to show cause against the same. In impugning the order of removal, the first ground is that the same is not passed in the individual capacity of the Governor and on the basis of his personal satisfaction, which according to the Petitioner is an essential pre -requisite of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India. It is then alleged that in any case even the exercise of the power under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution is administrative in nature and therefore, subject to the process of judicial review. Whilst admitting that the sufficiency of material before the Governor for invoking the impugned power cannot be questioned in Court, it is nevertheless alleged that in fact there was absolutely no material before him for passing the impugned order. It has further been averred that peaceful agitation is a guaranteed right and it cannot be made the basis for invoking Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution. Lastly, it is the claim that it was incumbent upon the Respondents to disclose to the Petitioners the material and the charges on the basis of which they are being held guilty of misconduct and its non -disclosure is assailed as being in violation of the rule of natural justice.
(3.) IN the Return filed on behalf of the Respondents by Mr. B. S. Danewalia, Inspector General of Police, Punjab, a primary objection is taken that the impugned order itself recites that it has been passed after the Governor's satisfaction on the point of the inexpediency of holding an enquiry in the interest of the security of the State and therefore, the matter is not justiciable in Court and the validity thereof cannot be questioned. On merits, the stand of the Petitioner with regard to the non -participation in the police agitation is categorically and forthrightly controverted. It has been averred that some undesirable elements in the police force organised patently illegal demonstrations and dharnas in the State thereby gravely jeopardising the security of the State. The Petitioner is specifically averred to have taken part in organising these illegal demonstrations and dharnas and had vehemently incited others to do so. The activities in the present case were an aggravated form of prejudicial activities which were calculated to directly endanger the security of the State and the illegal agitation was carried on in a manner which rendered necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India.;