news details |
|
|
| Trial Court has no power to direct Departmental action at Charge stage: HC | | | Early Times Report
Srinagar, May 3: In a landmark judgment, Justice Sanjeev Kumar holds that at this stage when even charge is yet to be framed, the trial Court cannot presume that the allegation leveled in the charge-sheet prima facie constitute commission of any offence by the accused.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that in any case, the trial Court is not vested with any such jurisdiction where it could initiate or direct initiation of departmental action against the delinquent for committing misconduct in service.
This significant judgment has been passed in a petition filed by Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Bhat along with 12 others who are facing trial in case FIR No.17/2011 before Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar. The Special Judge Anticorruption vide its order dated 18.01.2018 took cognizance of the charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance Organization, Kashmir and adjourned the matter to 08.02.2018 for arguments on charge/discharge. As is apparent from the order dated 18.01.2018 the Special Judge Anticorruption also took note of the allegations contained in the charge-sheet submitted by the Vigilance Organization with regard to illegal appointments made by the accused-petitioners while they were holding public office and called upon the Commissioner/Secretary to Govt., Housing and Urban Development Department to spell out reasons as to why no action has been initiated against the accused delinquent officers/officials on administrative side so far and also as to how the beneficiaries of illegal appointments have been allowed to continue.
The impugned portion of the order has been assailed by the petitioners primarily on the ground that neither under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 (Svt.) nor under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the trial Court is vested with such powers.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that no such powers are conferred upon the trial Court either by the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Criminal Procedure Code.
With these observations High Court quashed the impugned order with the observations that nothing prevents the State to proceed against the delinquent public servants-accused in the challan under the relevant Service Rules and initiate appropriate departmental action, if warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Special Judge Anticorruption only reminded the State of its solemn obligation to perform its statutory duties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
