9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (2) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ension by an order made by the appellant on that date. Later, the appellant passed another order on February 12, 1955, demoting the petitioner to the post of a Divisional Engineer. On May 12, 1955, the respondent moved the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir under Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, for a writ directing the appellant not to give effect to the order dated February 12, 1955, and to recognise him as the Chief Engineer, the substantive post held by him when he was suspended, with effect from the date of suspension and with all the emoluments of that office. The High Court issued the writ as prayed. The State appeals from the judgment of the High Court, In the view that, we think, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the facts any more. The respondent, in his application for the writ, questioned the validity of the orders suspending and demoting him on these grounds. He alleged that the Commission did not conduct the enquiry according to the rules of natural justice. He said that he was not even informed of the charges against him nor given a proper hearing and that if he had been given proper opportunity, he would have proved that he had not been at fault at all. He also said that the appointment of the Commission could only have been made under s. 2 of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1977 (Kashmir era), and must, therefore, be deemed to have been so made. He complained that the provisions of this Act were not observed by the Commission in maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the rights conferred by it are the fundamental rights. Therefore, the High Court can act under cl. (2A) of Art. 32 only to enforce a fundamental right. The only fundamental right, however, on the violation of which learned counsel for the respondent could rely in support of the order of the High Court was that conferred by Art. 14, namely, the right to the equal protection of the laws. He said that the respondent was entitled to have the procedure prescribed by the Kashmir Civil Service Rules followed before the order demoting him could be made and as that procedure was not followed, his client had been denied the equal protection of the laws. It seems to us that even if the Rules are a law and the respondent has not been given the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
