The judgment establishes the need for material supporting the Governor's satisfaction in dismissing personnel under Section 126(2)(c) of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, and the limitations of judicial review in such cases.

All the above mentioned writ petitions relate to the same matter which arise out of one and the same episode, the points involved are common in all the petitions, the order impugned is the same and even the arguments raised are almost on similar lines so these are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The matter pertains to police agitation, which took place at Srinagar in the year 1993. The agitation, it appears from the record was launched in protest against the death of a constable. Certain police personnel abstained from discharging their duties, they were joined by a good number of other police officials who demand action against the SSP, Srinagar, revival of Police Union and reinstatement of police employee who had been dismissed from service. The agitation continued from 22nd to 27th April 1993, during this period a procession was taken out by the agitation. As a result of this agitation, 109 police personnel of different battalions of JKAP were dismissed from service by his Excellency the Governor of the State under Article 126 (2)(c) of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, Government Order No.9 (POL) of 1993 dated 1st May 1993, which was issued in this behalf reads as under: -

Whereas the Governor is satisfied that the conduct and activities of Police personnel as mentioned in the Annexure to this order are detrimental and prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, it is necessary that said police officials should be dismissed from service in public interest and.

Whereas, the Governor is further satisfied that in terms of Clause (C) of provision of Sub-Section (2) of the Section 126 of the Constitution of J&K in the interest of the security of the state, it is not expedient to hold any enquiry against the said police officials.

Now, therefore, the Governor in accordance with provision of Section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India hereby dismisses the police officials as mentioned in the Annexure to this order with immediate effect.

By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir

3. Later the dismissed employees filed representations for review of the decision of their dismissal and prayed for their reinstatement. Their representations were entrusted by the Government to a Committee, specially constituted for the purpose. The Committee comprised of Shri S.S.Wazir and Shri A.M.Watali, both retired Inspector Generals of Police of the State. The Committee examined all the aspects of the case and recommended for reinstatement of all the Police personnel. The Committee taking note of conflicting reports relied upon by the State and certain clerical discrepancy in the Government Order observed that the orders of dismissal were passed in violation of the Constitutional provisions and in hot haste. The Committee observed as under: -

The overwhelming documentary evidence produced by the aggrieved police personnel with their representations could not rebutted by a general note of ADGP-DIC sic (CID) -J&K which has been the basis of dismissal. Even the entries in the D.D reports and attendance register are of very important evidentiary value as these records have been maintained in the ordinary course of circumstances when the matter was not in dispute. It is, therefore, very difficult to brush aside or reject this evidence. It could be argued that the dismissed Police personnel may have been participating in the strike after making their attendance. But in that case they should have been marked absent by their respective Gazetted Officers at any stage between 21st and 27th April 1993. If a police personnel is proved to be on duty on record, he cannot be presumed to have deserted his duties without a valid documentary proof to the contrary. The documentary evidence produced by the dismissal police personnel in support of their individual representations about this being on duty is conclusive proof of their non-involvement. Moreover no specific an