news details |
|
|
| Petitioner seeking 14 years suspension period on duty | | HC allowed petition hold petitioner will be deemed to be on duty | |
Jammu, August, 04 :- Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing in a writ petition filed by Chaman Lal Jalla a retired accountant seeking 14 years suspension period as on duty, has allowed the petition and hold that petitioner will be deemed to be on duty and directed the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioner pre-retiral and after retiral within period of three months.
This landmark judgment delivered here yesterday by Justice Nirmal Singh after referring judgment of Supreme Court titled state of Rajasthan Vs B K Meena and a judgment of Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Som Parkash Wadhawan Vs The Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others and observed that there was no bar for holding an enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner superannuated on June 30, 2005 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on September 6, 2005. Now it is to be seen whether the respondents are competent to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner after his superannuation. The provision dealing with this proposition has been laid down in rule 168-A says that Govt reserves its right to effect recovery from the pension of an officer of any amount on account of loss found in Judicial or departmental proceedings. If the departmental proceedings are not initiated while the officer was on duty, then same can be initiated with sanction of the Govt with respect to an event which took place not more than one year before the date on which the officer was last on duty. The incident with regard to which the FIR was registered is of the year 1978; the said FIR was quashed by the High Court on October 9, 2002. The allegations as per the FIR against the petitioner was simply that he was an accomplice of one Mohan Krishan Razdan (an account officer in the state insurance section while acting as drawing and disbursing officer embezzled an amount of Rs 2, 64, 386). Against whom FIR u/s 420/409/467/471/477-A RPC was registered. The respondents, however, have not initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner even after the quashment of the FIR.
Justice Nirmal Singh further observed that when the case is decided even on technical grounds that will be treated on merit. Admittedly, respondents have not challenged the order of quashment of FIR passed by High Court by filling any appeal or revision and the said order has attained finality. Therefore, the FIR was registered against the petitioner erroneously. The respondents have not initiated the departmental proceedings within one year of the incident not the sanction has been obtained from the Govt before initiating the departmental proceedings, therefore, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner cannot continue at this stage. Court allowed the petition and order passed by the Director Funds Organization for departmental enquiry shall stand quashed. Therefore, the petitioner will be deemed to be on duty. Respondent are directed to settle the claim of the petitioner pre-retiral and after retiral within a period of three months from the date of a copy of this order is made available to them by the petitioner, in case, the claim of the petitioner is not settled within the prescribed period, the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 9% PA from the date of passing this order.
According to the petitioner Chaman Lal Jalla, who filed this petition in the year 2005 through Advocate Sunil Hali submitted that FIR NO 132/78 was registered against the petitioner with the P/S Sher Garhi Srinagar. The said FIR was segregated into various FIRs and there were other accused involved in the case one of them was Mohan Krishan Razdan. The allegations were that during his posting as accounts officer embezzled an amount of Rs 2, 64, 386.22 by fraudulent manipulation. The petitioner was suspected be an accomplice of Mohan Krishan Razdan and a Challan was produced before the CJM Srinagar and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Srinagar. The case however remained at initial stage, the petitioner filed a petition in the High Court, the High Court on October 9, 2002 quashed the FIR against the petitioner, and the state has not filed any appeal or revision against the order of the High Court. The petitioner who was suspended on May 16, 1978 came to be reinstated during the pendency of the Trial on July 3, 1992. The petitioner superannuated on June 30, 2005, has filed the present writ petition and prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner’s period of suspension as on duty and released all emoluments in his favour to which he would be entitled and also seeking direction to grant promotional benefits to the petitioner as Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 1997 and thereafter Account Officer and Chief Account Officer alongwith all the consequential benefits of pay, allowances etc with interest @ 18% PA. Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioner pre-retiral and after retiral.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
