news details |
|
|
| PIL highlighting inadequate staff in anti-graft bodies, sanction for corruption cases | | DB shown dissatisfaction of state concern, issues directions | | Jammu, July 9: In the much publicized Public Interest Litigation originally filed for seeking sanction in corruption cases wherein IAS/IFS/KAS officers were involved in which a fresh application was filed highlighting inadequate staff/ infrastructure to State Accountability Commission, State Information Commission and State Vigilance Commission and newly created seven Additional Anticorruption Courts in State of J&K, a Division Bench of State High Court Comprising Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan expressed dissatisfaction of the state concern.
When PIL came-up for hearing, Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi raised the issue of filling up the position of Chairman and a Member in the Accountability Commission as they are likely to complete their tenure in August, 2014.
He has expressed the apprehension that the 'Accountability Commission' would become a defunct body if the steps for filling up the positions of Chairman and a Member are not taken by constituting a search committee, Division Bench observed that the issue then is appointment of two Former Judges to the Accountability Commission.
"We have been told that both the Chairman and the Member, who are former Judges of this Court, are to complete their terms in August, 2014".
Division Bench further observed that there is no information, which would show that any step has been taken for filling up two positions by constituting a Search Committee. An apprehension has been expressed by the Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi for the parties that the Accountability Commission would become a defunct body if the steps are not taken to appoint the Chairman and its Member.
Accordingly, Division Bench directed that immediate steps be taken for appointing the Chairman and Member of the Accountability Commission and a detailed action taken report be filed by the department of Home, law and General Administration before the next date of hearing. Division Bench make it clear that if steps are not taken to fill up the positions then this court would be constrained to consider the continuation of the present incumbents till new incumbents are finalized.
Apart from this, Division Bench observed that a number of issues of public importance have been raised in this Public Interest Litigation in which this Court has issued various directions from time to time. One of the core orders was passed on 4.4.2014. The aforesaid order had taken notice of three issues, namely, what action has been taken in respect of 147 gazetted officers against whom departmental enquiries were pending; in pursuance of SRO 368 dated 29. 08.2013, 07 Additional District and Sessions courts were empowered to hear the cases registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act 2006. However, the prosecuting agency and accompanying staff was also required to be supplied. Sanction order dated 16.04.2014 was issued, which stipulates creation of seven posts of CPO/SPO and Junior Stenographers. In various orders passed by this court, dissatisfaction has been expressed for not taking any step for filling up the aforesaid sanctioned posts. A reference in that regard be made to orders dated 23.4.2014 and 16.5.2014. The third issue was as to the interim arrangement to provide Prosecuting Officer to the aforesaid seven Additional Sessions Judges.
On the issue of action taken against 147 officers involved in the departmental enquiries as disclosed in an application, attention has been invited by the counsel for the parties to the compliance report dated 29.5.2014. It has been submitted that 12 departmental enquiries have been disposed of under rules by different departments including School Education Department (1), Cooperative Department (2), Health and Medical Education Department (1), Rural Development Department (4), Public Works Department (03) and J&K Special Tribunal (01). It has not been disclosed in these 12 enquiries, as to what were the nature of allegations and the status of the delinquent employee. Upon this Division Bench constrained to observe that the GAD is slack in securing information from the concerned departments for obvious reasons and concerned departments are shying away in disclosing complete information. The information as per the directions issued by High Court has not been disclosed so far and it would be apposite to remind the respondents of order dated April 4, 2014, in which Division Bench observed that the status report disclosed that there are 147 pending departmental enquiries and Action Taken Reports (ATRs) are awaited and in all cases. This disclosure has been made only at the instance of the petitioners by filing application wherein a press report was attached divulging the pendency of 143 such cases. On an earlier occasion it was stated by the respondents that no such case was pending, which has now been belied by the status report filed by the General Administration Department itself. However, the disclosure made in Para 2 reveals less and conceals much more. The stage of action, name of the officer(s), the nature of charges and the action proposed to be taken has not been disclosed. It is also concealed from the Court as to whether these officers are discharging duties holding high responsible positions or they are positioned at less responsible positions. There is no time bound action suggested. Accordingly, we direct that complete disclosure with regard to the stage of enquiries, nature of charges, status of officers and their present postings be made to this Court so that appropriate orders be passed and directions are issued.
Division Bench further observed that the position has marginally changed but no change in material particulars is seen since the passing of order dated 4.4.2014. Adv SS Ahmed appearing for the PIL also drawn the attention of Division Bench to the status report which gives the list of cases pending against officers/officials. The name of the officer is concealed nor the present place of posting has been revealed. Is it with the apprehension that their nexus with might would be exposed or with some other motives? A perusal of the list would show that the officers suffer from serious allegations. At item No. 5, for example, the name of the officer/official has been withheld, who belongs to Revenue Department nor his place of posting has been revealed. Officers suffer from the allegation of transfer of 1200 kanals of Govt. Land to Land Grabbers in Kote Balwal Area. In the column, "to whom sent with specific recommendations with Date/Action proposed", it has been stated that the matter has been sent to Divisional Commissioner Jammu on 7.7.2011 for legal action against those, who have sold land in excess of their shares and further departmental action against the responsible revenue officers, has been recommended, who have issued the Fard-i-Intikhab for the sale of the land. What happened after 7.7.2011 has not been revealed and all that has been said is that action taken report is awaited.
In this 10 pages detailed order written by Chief Justice MM Kumar for the Division Bench after hearing Adv SS Ahmed with Adv Suraj Singh Wazir appearing for the PIL whereas Sr. AAG Gagan Basotra appearing for the state, Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi assisted by Ankesh Chandel appearing for the SAC, observed that there are officers, who have misused their official positions. The allegation against the officer is bungling in disbursement of compensation paid to undeserving persons in lieu of consideration. The matter is pending since 23.8.2011 wherein a regular departmental action against Mushtaq Ahmad Buhroo, then patwari and Abdul Rashid Parray, then Patwari Halqa Mantrigam, Bandipora was recommended. The detail in Annexure-4 is full of such instances. At Srl. No. 12, one Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and J.E., Relief Organization, J&K are facing the charges of withdrawing Rs. 10 Lacs against non-existing sanitary works without inviting tenders. The matter is pending since 7.11.2012. Thus, the revelation made in respect of various official/officers does not leave any manner of doubt that most of them suffer from serious allegations, but no effort is made by the respondents to take the departmental enquiry to its logical end and we fail to understand why the machinery of criminal justice has not been put into motion.
Division Bench further observed that this Court also unable to appreciate why the respondents are shy of disclosing their names and place of posting. If a person who suffers from serious allegations of corruption, mis-appropriation and fraudulent transactions, causing loss to the public exchequer to the tune of lacs of rupees then he would not deserve a public dealing posting. The GAD must furnish the detailed report as required by of the order dated 04.04.2014 before the next date and further directed that If the report is not filed, then Principal Secretary to Govt, GAD shall remain present in person. If the report is filed before the next date of hearing, then personal appearance would not be necessary. Division Bench wish to make it clear that the detailed report as per the directions issued today and in the earlier orders must be furnished and a report containing half-information shall not be accepted.
Division Bench observed that the other issue pertains to providing Prosecuting Officers to the seven Additional District and Sessions Judges, who have been empowered to deal with cases under P.C Act. In the status report filed on 04.07.2014, it has been clarified that an advertisement notice was issued on 17.04.2014, inviting applications from the retired CPOs. Only two retired CPOs applied from District Pulwama and District Rajouri, to be engaged on contractual basis as Special Public Prosecutor in Vigilance Organization. In addition, four retired Deputy Directors of Prosecution had also applied, who have not been found eligible because the applications were sought only from the CPOs/SPOs. In the light of the poor response received, approval for engagement of retired Deputy Director of Prosecution in addition to CPOs and senior POs has been sought from GAD by sending communication dated 11.06.2014. The slow peddling of this issue does not augur well for advancing the Administration of Justice. The courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges were empowered to deal with corruption cases way back in August, 2013. A period of more than eleven months has passed, yet the prosecuting officers are not insight. If any of the six applicants as disclosed in the status report filed by respondent No.9 are found to be suitable, then immediate steps be taken by the GAD to clear their files and give them posting orders. It will facilitate expeditious disposal of corruption cases.
Division Bench further observed that a reference has been invited to the application highlighting two cases of Prof. N.K. Resutra, who has been working as Principal GDC, Boys Udhampur and Prof. Hemla Aggarwal, Principal GDC, Paloura. In the case of Prof. N.K. Restura, an enquiry has been conducted and the enquiry report stands submitted on 20.8.2011. Thereafter a show cause notice was served on Prof. N.K. Restura on 9.9.2011. After the reply to the show cause notice was received, the matter appears to have been referred to the commission of enquiries. Division Bench failed to understand the procedure adopted for referring the matter to the commission of enquiries because after the enquiry has been completed, a show cause notice issued and the reply is filed then the appointing authority is required to go into the issues raised in the reply and pass appropriate orders. Likewise, in the case of Dr. Hemla Aggarwal, an enquiry report was submitted on 4.2.2010 which was sent to her on 9.11.2010. She submitted her reply on 9.5.2012 and thereafter she was issued a show cause notice on 2.12.2012. The show cause notice stands replied on 9.12.2012. In both the cases, there is unnecessary delay, which appears to be deliberate act. Is there a hidden hand, who wishes to shield these officers or there are justifiable reasons for the delay of 2/3 years in finalizing the reply to show cause notice. Upon this Division Bench directed that the action be taken on the show cause notice issued to both the officers and the status report be filed before the next date of hearing.
Division Bench further observed that Sr. AAG Gagan Basotra submitted that before next date of hearing rules shall be finalized in all probability with regard to finalization of rules in respect of the staff of vigilance commission. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
