news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses ARTO's petition challenging disciplinary proceedings | | | early times report
Jammu, Feb 18 (JNF): J&K High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Bipan Singh Charak then ARTO challenging the disciplinary proceedings against him and show-cause notice along with enquiry report, suspension order.
Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir of the HC while dismissing the petition with CMPs and observed that the petition against show cause notice was not maintainable.
The petitioner had challenged disciplinary proceedings against him by the respondents, show cause notice bearing No. PS/Secy./TPT/108 dated 18.10.2011 along with enquiry report, suspension order No. 33/TC of 2011 dated 09.03.2011 and memorandum No. TR-19/MVD/03/2011/104 dated 31.03.2011, with a direction to respondent No.1 to reinstate him w.e.f. 09.03.2011 as ARTO with all consequential benefits, on the grounds taken in the petition.
Advocate SS Ahmed appearing for the petitioner argued that show cause notice is bad in law and requires to be quashed on the ground that Inquiry Officer has not complied with Rule 33(1) of the J&K Civil Services (Classif-ication, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (for short 'CCA Rules').
He also argued that respondents have not furnished copy of inquiry report to the petitioner as required under law, as such, entire proceedings drawn are in breach and violation of Rules 33, 34 and 35 of the CCA Rules.
The state respondents filed reply and in which Advocate General M I Qadiri with AAG Ravinder Sharma resisted the petition on the ground that same is not maintainable.
The court after hearing Advocate S S Ahmed appearing for the petitioner and Advocate Qadiri and AAG Ravinder Shar-ma for the state referred various judgments of the Supreme Court and Rules 33 and 34 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 and observed that respondents are under obligation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner to explain as to why proposed penalty be not imposed upon him and the petitioner has a right to submit his explanation to the show cause notice within the time frame.
"But, in the present case, petitioner instead of showing cause has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court, thus, has stalled inquiry proceedings. Virtually, the petitioner has restrained the respondents from passing final order," he said.
The court further observed that in the present case respondents have furnished copy of proceedings, thus, writ petition against show cause notice, is not maintainable and dismissed the same along with connected CMPs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
