news details |
|
|
| Ex-Dir Agri discharges in adhoc appointments case | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 30- Discharging the accused of the charges leveled against him by the Vigilance Organization for issuing 164 appointment orders in violation of SRO 291 of 1989, during his tenure as the then Director Agriculture in 1995-96, Special Judge, Anticorruption, Jammu BL Bhat held that the Vigilance Organization has not been able to make out a prima facie case justifying framing of charges and putting the accused on trial after more than a decade of the alleged occurrence. The charges cannot be sustained and the accused is accordingly discharged of the offences alleged against him, the court ordered.
Special Judge Anticorruption, after hearing both the sides and also going through the record as also referring various judgments, held that the accused made a departure from procedure laid down in SRO 291 with oblique motive and no dishonest intention can be attributed to accused. It is not shown that the accused derived any pecuniary benefit, much less as a motive or reward or that he caused any pecuniary advantage to anybody with dishonest intention. The violation of SRO too is not established to have been made for any extraneous consideration. The perpetuation of the adhoc appointment orders is not attributed solely to him. By regularizing such of the employees as continued in service even after the retirement of accused (who retired from service on January 31, 1997) the government virtually ratified his acts of omission and commission. Court is of the considered opinion that misconduct on the part of accused in not conforming to SRO 291 in making adhoc appointments of 77 candidates covered under the 116 cases pending determination before this Court does not fall in the province of "Criminal misconduct" as defined under section 5 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Since no demand and acceptance of any pecuniary advantage as motive or reward is alleged and established, offence under section 161 RPC too is not prima facie made out.
According to the Vigilance organization, VK Soi, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Agriculture Production Department had filed a complaint in which it was alleged that accused Som Nath Sharma the then Director Agriculture engaged 110 candidates as Class IV during 1995-96 in violation of guidelines issued by the State Government. For conducing preliminary enquiry to verify the allegations made in the complaint, the VOJ registered a case u/s 5(2) PC Act under FIR No 71/1998 against the accused Som Nath Sharma then Director Agriculture and a batch of 116 challans arose of a single FIR. The investigation revealed that accused issued 164 appointment orders in violation of SRO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
