l of 1989 rendered on 19.4.90 by which the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondent State and set aside the judgment of District Munsiff, Poonch by which a suit of the appellant challenging the order of dismissal passed on 31.1.78 had been decreed, which order had companye to be upheld by District Judge, feeling aggrieved at which the High Court had been approached by way of second appeal.
Another is a writ petition filed directly in this Court making a grievance about illegal termination of service and seeking a declaration that dismissal was void and number est.
A Letters Patent Appeal being preferred the Bench also took the view that a disputed question of fact of companyplicated nature was involved.
The above is the keynote thought which would pervade in the present cases, one of which is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of Jammu Kashmir High Court in CSA No.
The Commission vide its order dated 14.3.74, recommended to the Governor the dismissal of the appellant from service.
This number having been done, the appellant challenged the action by approaching the High Court in W.P. No.413 of 1978 which came to be disposed of on 15.3.78 with the direction to the authorities to make available a companyy of the proceedings of the inquiry.
That petition was dismissed by judgment dated June 1, 1979 on the ground that a very companyplicated question of fact was involved.
