news details |
|
|
| HC directs to implead the then Sessions Judge Leh as party | | Removal of the then CJM Leh challenged | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Dec 17
Justice Nirmal Singh of J&K High Court, Jammu Wing, today in a writ petition filed by the then CJM Leh, who was removed from service on August 29, 2000 after the enquiry conducted by the then High Court Judge presently Acting Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, challenged his removal from service, has directed registry to implead the then District & Sessions Judge Leh as party and issued notice to him for filling objections.
According to the petition, the petitioner while posted as Sub-Judge/CJM at Leh, some complaints were received against him and the Vigilance Commissioner (Judicial) conducted an enquiry into the matter. The petitioner, however, was not associated in the said enquiry. A report was submitted to the High Court pending departmental enquiry against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension on July 28, 1994. Full Court appointed an Enquiry Officer Justice Bilal Ahmed Nazki, now Acting Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh, High Court of Hyderabad. Although the charges have not been proved strictly, except two charges, after the enquiry was completed and a report was submitted, the matter was placed before the Full Court which decided that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in service and a major penalty of removal from service should be imposed upon the petitioner and a show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner on the penalty imposed against him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Full Court and accordingly a recommendation was made to the Governor for imposing the penalty of removal from service of the petitioner. The Governor vide order August 29, 2000 removed the petitioner from service with immediate effect, which was challenged by petitioner.
The Enquiry Officer in his report regarding the then District & Sessions Judge Leh observed that the conduct of the said Judge was worse than that of the petitioner and only the god can save the institution and in presence of such sweeping observations his statement has been relied.
Justice Singh, after hearing Advocates KK Pangotra and SK Raina appearing for the petitioner and Adv HA Siddiqui appearing for the respondents, observed that a perusal of the said pleadings by the petitioner taken in the petition shows that the petitioner has alleged malafide and leveled serious allegations against his immediate higher authority the then District & Sessions Judge Leh. There is no rebuttal to said pleadings either by the High Court or by the said officer. Therefore, Court is of the opinion, in order to reach a just conclusion, the then District & Sessions Judge Leh against whom malafide has been alleged by the petitioner, is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the present petition. Court accordingly directed registry to implead, as party respondent, the then District & Sessions Judge Leh and issued notice to him for filling objections/ counter on or before the next day of hearing. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
