The court upheld the validity of suspension orders issued under proper legislative authority, determining them amenable to judicial review.

1. (1) This is an application by the petitioner for quashing an order by which he was suspended pending inquiry into certain charges that were levelled against him.

2. The petitioner joined service under the Public Works Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a sub-overseer in the year 1931 and was ultimately promoted to the post of an Assistant Engineer. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer when certain allegations against him were made to his superior officers and two papers "Khurshid" and "Sandesh" published various accusations against him which drew the attention of the Government. It appears that on 15-10-1957, the Government passed an order suspending the petitioner and directed the Chief Engineer concerned to execute the order of suspension and to investigate into the matter pending the suspension or the petitioner. This order is Annexure "A". In consequence of this order, the Divisional Engineer Construction Division under whom the petitioner was working at the time, directed him to report to his former Headquarters pending further inquiry. This order is Annexure "E". Thereafter, an inquiry was started against the petitioner under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) R.1958 which was pending when the petition was filed in this Court but which has since been concluded. By another order of the Government dated 22-9-1960 which is Annexure - "O" in this case, the previous order of suspension was confirmed.

3. In support of the rule, Mr. I.M. Lall appearing for the petitioner has raised two points before us. In the first place, he has contended that the inquiry which was started under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1958 was completely without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Saddar - i - Riyasat has no power to frame such rules in view of the provisions of S.124 of the State Constitution. In order to appreciate this argument, it will be necessary to examine the provisions of S.124 of the State Constitution which runs as follows :
"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature may by law regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State :
Provided that it shall be competent for the Saddar - i - riyasat or such persons as he may direct to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until pro - Vision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the Legislature tinder this Section and any rules so made shall nave effect subject to the provisions of any such Act."

4. It is manifest from a perusal of these provisions that the Constitution has given a restricted Legislative power to the Sadar - i - Riyasat to frame Rules, regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed in the State Services pending an Act passed by the Legislature with respect to this matter. In other words, so long as the Legislature does not pass any Act regarding the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed to the services of the State, the Sadar - i - Riyasat is free to make such Rules as he desires in order to regulate the conditions of service of the services of the State, me moment the Legislature passes an Act on the subject the authority of the Saddar - i - Riyasat to frame such Rules ceases to exist. Mr. Lall submits that as the Act of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servant (Removal of Doubts' and Declaration, of Rights) Act, 1956 was passed by t