ABDUL KABIR PANDANI Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by Abdul Kabir Pandani under Sec. 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No. 1 be quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, and the petitioner be direct, ed to be placed in the same position which he occupied before he was suspended during the proceedings. The petitioner has averred that he has a service of 16 years as a warder in Central Jail, Srinagar. On 6-12-1967 he was taken by the C.I.D. Police, Srinagar to the Interrogation Centre where he was interrogated and harassed for seven days and then as nothing incriminating was found he was released. When the petitioner joined his duties at Central Jail he was informed that he had been put under suspension as the final report had not been received from the C. I. D. However on 9-3-68 he was asked to resume duties by respondent No. 1 and was paid his salary for the entire period of suspension (vide Order Annexure 'A'). Soon after the resuming of his duty he was transferred to Jammu. In May, 1968 he was asked to proceed by Superintendent Central Jail Jammu to Srinagar and was again put under suspension. On 15.5.68 he was given a show cause notice about the petitioners having allegedly acted as courier between some detenus (vide Annexure 'B'.) The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation and denied the allegations and alleged that the complaint against him was based on enmity as the detenus on whom he had used force once when they had turned violent in the Jail. No enquiry was held in the presence of the petitioner nor was he asked to attend any enquiry proposed to be conducted by the respondent No. 1. On 14-4-69 he was served with a charge sheet and the interrogation of the two detenus was used as basis for taking action against him vide Annexure 'C'. A detailed explanation was submitted to the show cause notice by the petitioner hut on 7-6-69 the petitioner received an order of dismissal from the service from respondent No. 1 vide Annexure 'D'. The impugned order, it is further averred, is liable to be quashed on the following grounds :

(2.) Along with the petition the petitioner has sworn in an affidavit in which a recital has been made of the averments made in the petition.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents Mr. G. M. Shah, Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar has sworn in a reply affidavit. In this affidavit he has stated that during the course of interrogation it had come to notice that the petitioner was acting as couriers between Ghulam Nabi Hagroo, a detenu in the Central Jail, and one Sheikh Ghulam Mohd. Bhadarwahi and were maintaining communication between the said persons which was prohibited by law. In view of the petitioners complicity in the aforesaid affair he was suspended on 21-12-1969. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the C. I. D. authorities who submitted their report on 19-2-1968 according to which allegations were proved against the petitioner; that the petitioner was transferred to Jammu is not denied. It is admitted that the petitioner was reinstated on 19th of March 1968 where after he joined his duties at Central Jail Jammu. This reinstatement was never in. tended to mean that it exonerated the petitioner of the charges. The petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the show cause notice served upon him, but the petitioner did not, however, pray for examining any witness or for personal hearing. The explanation tendered by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory. The allegations against him were proved. A second notice was given to the petitioner on 14th of April 1969 detailing therein the charges established against him and he was given a further chance to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him to which the petitioner submitted his reply. It was. however, found that no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner for taking any lenient view against him. Accordingly he was dismissed from service. The petitioner did not make request for producing any evidence or for cross-examination of witnesses. There has been no violation of the provisions of Sec. 126 of the Constitution.