news details |
|
|
| HC refuses to quash FIR in corruption case | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Apr 27: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of J&K High Court Srinagar Wing dismissed the petition seeking quashment of FIR registered by Vigilance Organization Kashmir.
The petitioners filed the petition FIR No 16/2018, registered by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Srinagar. The petitioners also pray for a mandamus to the respondents not to treat the registration of FIR against them as an impediment in the future promotions of the petitioners. The quashment of the FIR is sought in the context of factual narration given by the petitioners in the petition, which goes as that in Sopore Municipality, eight (8) consolidated wagers, working as sweepers, drivers etc. since 2000 had been pressing for their regularization on the ground that they had completed more than ten years of service and were thus entitled to regularization of their services. The then Executive Officer, Latief Ahmed Mir conceded to their request and passed an order of regularization in their favour on 08.07.2013 and all the eight persons were put in regular pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200 (plus usual allowances) with immediate effect and the order was sent to respondent No. 4 for grant of necessary approval. The respondent No.4, it is claimed, neither cancelled the said order nor accorded any formal approval and, as a result thereof, the then Executive Officer did not give effect to the regularization of the aforementioned eight consolidated workers till he was in office. Even the Executive Officers, who later on replaced and followed in office Latief Ahmed Mir, also did not release the regular pay scale in favour of the consolidated workers. The petitioner No 1 took over as Executive Officer of Sopore Municipality in July, 2016 when petitioner No 2 was posted there as Secretary.
The petitioners seek to challenge the impugned FIR primarily on the ground that the acts and omissions that are attributed to the petitioners in the questionnaire served upon them do not constitute offences under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and, therefore, they cannot be booked in the aforesaid FIR. It is also challenged on the ground that the matter with regard to legality or otherwise of the regularization of the consolidated workers is subjudice before this Court and, therefore, the ACB has no jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation of the FIR.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that the petitioners have only been served with a questionnaire to which they also claim to have responded. The Investigation officer is yet to take a call as to whether the explanation tendered by the petitioners is sufficient enough to exculpate them from the allegations those have surfaced in the investigation of the FIR No. 16/2018. The petitioners are yet to be booked in the FIR.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that the action of petitioners is subject matter of investigation. There is also no plausible explanation forthcoming from petitioner No.1 as to why, just after few months, he cancelled the order of regularization issued by his predecessor in the year 2013. He cites non-availability of funds as reason for cancellation of the order. Anyway, this is a matter which needs thorough probe and investigation. It is true that the order of cancellation passed by petitioner No.1 is subject matter of adjudication in a writ petition pending in this Court and this Court, by way of interim order, has stayed it but that does not in any manner take away the power of the investigating authority to investigate the matter to find out; that whether there is criminal angle to the transaction or not; whether the orders passed by the petitioners are in the bonafide exercise of their executive power or is sheer manipulation to confer wrongful benefit on eight persons at the cost of the public exchequer and; whether or not these have been issued for some ulterior considerations, are the questions that can be determined only after a thorough probe and investigation is made by the respondents. There is thus no point to stall the investigation at this point of time. With these observations, High Court dismissed the petition. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
