Virender Singh, J.— 1. The appeal on hand is directed against the judgement/order passed by learned Single Judge dated 26-04-2011 in SWP No. 500/2007 titled Abdul Rashid Lone v. State of J&K & Ors. : 2011 (2) JKJ HC-565 whereby allowing the writ petition of the respondent (for short writ petitioner), quashing the Govt. Order No. 365-GAD of 2007 dated 2.4.2007 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from Civil Services, dispensing with the enquiry by invoking Proviso (c) to Section 126(2) of the Constitution of J&K, leaving it open to the appellants to hold a regular enquiry against the petitioner by affording him an opportunity of explaining his stance. 2. The court felt the necessity of perusing the complete record once again for arriving at the just conclusion of the appeal. Learned State counsel after seeking time at two/three occasions has now produced the same. 3. Learned counsel for both the sides agree to the disposal of the present appeal at the admission stage itself, therefore, taken on board for its final consideration. 4. Heard Mr. Kawoosa, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Mr. F.A. Bhat, advocate for the writ petitioner. Perused the record produced by Mr. Kawoosa. 5. Mr. Kawoosa submits that the impugned judgement is not in conformity with the well established rules and principles of law. He submits that an order passed under Clause (c) of Sub-Section 2 of Section 126 of Constitution of J&K would be open to challenge before the court on the grounds of malafides or being based wholly on extraneous or irrelevant grounds only and the court exercising the power of judicial review cannot go into the adequacy, truthfulness or correctness of the material. According to him, the court cannot substitute its opinion with that of the Governor, even if, some of the material on which the action is taken is found to be irrelevant. 6. Mr. Kawoosa would contend that in the case on hand, there was sufficient material available for dispensing with holding of regular enquiry as the writ petitioner is shown to be involved in activities detrimental and prejudicial to the security of the State. 6. Mr. Kawoosa would contend that in the case on hand, there was sufficient material available for dispensing with holding of regular enquiry as the writ petitioner is shown to be involved in activities detrimental and prejudicial to the security of the State. All these aspects were examined by the competent authority and thereafter only, the present case was considered to be one of dispensing with the enquiry in terms of Proviso (c) to Sub Section (2) of Section 126 of the Constitution of J&K. 7. Mr. Kawoosa would further contend that the case of the writ petitioner was considered strictly in consonance with the Govt. Order No. 1608-G AD of 2004 dated 17-12-2004, which is based in supersession of all the previous orders with regard to the procedure for invoking clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. In terms of the said order, the cases of the government employees for considering their dismissal, dispensing with the enquiry, have to be referred to Financial Commissioner/Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department under the signatures of Addl. Director General, CID. The recommendations in respect of such cases shall be supported by a copy of the interrogation report and other collateral evidence to justify dispensing with the holding of an inquiry in the interest of security of the State. All this material then has to be placed before the Committee for scrutiny/further recommendations comprising Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner, Home Department, Director General of Police, Principal Secretary to Govt. General Administration Department, Additional Director General of Police, CID and the Commissioner/Secretary, Law Department. The recommendations made by the said Committee then have to be processed by the Administrative Secretary, Home for orders of the Cabinent/Governor in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is thereafter His Excellency the Governor considers the case of an individual employee for approval. 8. Mr. Kawoosa submits that along with the case of the writ petitioner, the committee so constituted examined the cases of other ten Govt. employees also and after scanning the entire material, recommended the case of the writ petitioner for dismissal from service without holding a regular enquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that there being no material before the Committee, the recommendation for dismissal was made. 9. Mr. employees also and after scanning the entire material, recommended the case of the writ petitioner for dismissal from service without holding a regular enquiry. Therefore, it cannot be said that there being no material before the Committee, the recommendation for dismissal was made. 9. Mr. Kawoosa further submits that the learned writ court while referring to judgement of Apex Court in case Union of India & anr v. Balbir Singh & anr, AIR 1998 SC 2043 , on which the appellants had relied, has laid stress on para 8 in the said judgement [Balbir Singh's case (supra)], but has not taken into account the observations made in para 9 of the said judgement and the case of appellants is squarely covered by the observation made in para 9. 10. According to learned State counsel, the learned writ court has otherwise not appreciated the dossier of the writ petitioner in its right perspective. It is prepared by the State agency on the basis of the report received from different quarters. There is only a passing reference to it in para 17 of the judgement, holding that nothing cogent is forthcoming to show that any of the act attributable to the petitioner is prejudicial to the security of the State. 11. Mr. Kawoosa, thus, prays for allowing of the instant appeal. 12. Mr. Bhat supports the judgement impugned submitting that it does not suffer from any flaw on any count. 13. There is no dispute that reasons for dispensing with the regular enquiiy in terms of Proviso (c) to Section 126(2) of the Constitution of J&K are not required to be given, where in an individual case, satisfaction is derived that in the interest of security of the State, dismissal of a Govt. employee can be slapped upon him. But satisfaction so derived has to be based on sufficient supporting material and not otherwise. Where the enquiry is dispensed with, without there being material on the record, such action will certainly fall within the ambit of judicial review by the court. In Balbir Singh's case (supra), their Lordships in para 8 observed thus: "8. But satisfaction so derived has to be based on sufficient supporting material and not otherwise. Where the enquiry is dispensed with, without there being material on the record, such action will certainly fall within the ambit of judicial review by the court. In Balbir Singh's case (supra), their Lordships in para 8 observed thus: "8. If an order passed under Article 311 (2) Proviso is assailed before a Court of law on the ground that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is not based on circumstances which have a bearing on the security of the State, the Court can examine the circumstances on which the satisfaction of the President or the Governor is based; and if it finds that the said circumstances have no bearing whatsoever on the security of the State, the Court can hold that the satisfaction of the President or the Governor which is required for passing such an order has been vitiated by wholly extraneous or irrelevant considerations." 14. Since Mr. Kawoosa has laid much stress, submitting that para 9 of the Balbir Singh's case (supra) has not been taken into consideration by the writ court, we feel it appropriate to reproduce the same and it reads: "9. In the present case, there is no material to infer any mala fides. What is required to be seen is whether the order is based on material which is wholly extraneous or irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever on the security of the State. The Tribunal had called upon the appellants to produce the entire confidential material on which the order is based. The Tribunal has held that at least two of the files placed before it are highly confidential. They all relate to the activities of the respondent which have a bearing on the security of the State. This is not a case where there is absolutely no material relating to the activities of the respondent prejudicial to the security of the State. The entire material gathered by the Intelligence Bureau was placed before a very high level Committee of Advisors under the procedure prescribed by the Government Memorandum. This was precisely for the purpose of ensuring that when a Government servant is dismissed without enquiry, there should be cogent material to indicate that it is necessary to do so in the interest of the security of the State. This was precisely for the purpose of ensuring that when a Government servant is dismissed without enquiry, there should be cogent material to indicate that it is necessary to do so in the interest of the security of the State. The material was examined by the Advisory Committee. Thereafter, it advised the dismissal of the respondent under proviso (c) to Article 311 (2). Therefore, the President has issued an order under Proviso (c) to Article 311 (2)." 15. Let us examine the case on hand on the basis of the material available oil record, which was produced by the learned State counsel before the writ court and there being a reference to it also in para 17 of the impugned judgement and before us once again for our perusal. 16. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as casual labourer in Power Development Corporation (PDC). Since he had participated in conduct of Assembly Elections in year 1996, in lieu of his participation as per the Government policy, he was regularized as Helper in PDC in year 1998. It so happened that he was arrested in case FIR No. 21/2004 on the allegation that he had some nexus with militant activities. He was admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Baramulla in September, 2004, but was taken into custody after detention order No. DMB/PSA/2941 dated 31-07-2004 was slapped upon him. The said detention order stood quashed by this court vide order dated 14-09-2005 rendered in HCP No. 197 of 2004. After the passing of the detention order, the petitioner remained under suspension, but was getting subsistence allowance and after the quashment of the detention order in March, 2006, he was reinstated in the service and the period of his suspension was treated as earned leave from 01-04-2004 to 30-07-2004 and on duty from 31-07-2004 to 01-11-2005. It is after the lapse of one year, the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service was passed on 02-04-2007, which now stands quashed. 17. It so happened that during the pendency of the lis before the learned writ court, the case registered against the writ petitioner because of the substantive offence of allegedly eeping the possession of arms/ammunition, he earned clean acquittal after full fledged trial as the witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, did not connect him with the commission of alleged offence. This aspect -has also been noticed by the learned writ court. 18. We, for our satisfaction, have once again examined the dossier prepared by the Home Department with regard to involvement of certain Govt. employees in subversive activities including the writ petitioner, who figures at No. 10 in that dossier. We do not find any other allegation, but for registration of the FIR of year 2004 in which the writ petitioner already stands acquitted and slapping upon the detention order upon him, which also was quashed by the High Court. The learned writ court by showing all constraint has not made mention of the activities of the petitioner and we also show the same constraint, but let it not give an impression as if this court has not taken into account the dossier prepared by the State (Home Department). In our considered view, there appears to be no relevant material asking for dispensing with a regular enquiry. A state material on which a categoric finding in favour of the petitioner being already returned, in our considered view, cannot said to be a ground, much less well founded ground for deriving satisfaction so as to dispense with the regular enquiry in terms of Proviso (c) to Section 126(2) of the Constitution of J&K. 19. Arguments advanced by Mr. Kawoosa that the complete record relating to the activities of the petitioner has not been considered by the learned writ court is, thus, repelled and that the finding returned by the writ court on the basis of the record, cannot be said to be contrary to the record. 20. We have examined the case of the petitioner in the light of the Govt. Order No. 1608-GAD of 2004 dated 17-12-2004, on which Mr. Kawoosa has again placed much reliance. In terms of the said order, the recommendations in respect of a Govt. employee for considering his case for dismissal by invoking clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 126 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, have to be supported by copy of the interrogation report and other collateral evidence to justify dispensing with the holding of an enquiry in the interest of security of the State. No doubt, in the case on hand, the interrogation report is available but the same is the repetition of registration of the earlier case of 2004 in which the writ petitioner already stands acquitted. No doubt, in the case on hand, the interrogation report is available but the same is the repetition of registration of the earlier case of 2004 in which the writ petitioner already stands acquitted. There is no other new material on the record to justify the recommendation as required in terms of aforesaid Govt. Order. Word 'Collateral Evidence' has its significance and while examining the case of this type under the head 'interest of security', the collateral evidence would mean the evidence descended from the same stock, but by a different line. In the present case, no such evidence is available on record to justify the recommendation of the functionaries of the State constituting the Committee in terms of the aforesaid Govt. Order No. 1608-GAD of 2004. In our considered view, the case of the writ petitioner has not been considered in its right perspective. 21. We cannot resist to place it on record that the security of the State has to be a major concern for all those, who believe in rule of law. No stone should be left unturned to ensure that human civilization does not become the causality at the hands of anti-human and anti-national element. To achieve the said purpose, the State is duty bound to take the corrective measures, which would include the termination of a Govt. employee from service. But while doing so, the principles of natural justice and the safeguards, which are extended to a Govt. employee by the constitution and statute, have to be followed very strictly, which is wanting in the case on hand, consequently, success of the writ petitioner in his cause and failure of the appellants)-State to follow the law, being writ at large, we are left with no option but to agree with the impugned judgement. 22. Resultantly, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed along with CMP No. 282/2011. 23. Record produced by Mr. Kawoosa is returned to him.