news details |
|
|
| War against corruption | | Ranked outstanding in APRs, sacked by Azad Govt; FA comes clean from Court | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 17: In a significant judgment, Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir of Jammu and Kashmir today quashed the compulsorily retirement order of Janak Singh passed on August 14, 2006 by Ghulam Nabi Azad Government, when he was posted in the JDA as Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer and allegedly involved in much publicized case of purchases in the Education Department.
Interestingly, besides other things the Court also took on record the fact that Janak Singh was ranked ‘outstanding’, ‘excellent officer’ and his ‘integrity beyond doubt’ but still he was sacked. Singh was put on compulsory retirement by Ghulam Nabi Azad Government on August 14, 2006, in the regime’s much publicized ‘war against corruption’.
In approved for reporting 23 pages judgment, Justice Mir, after hearing Senior Advocate UK Jalali assisted by Advocates Parimoksh Seth and Shivani Jalali appearing for the petitioner and Advocate General DC Raina appearing for the state and also going through the records observed that the committee consisting Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner Home, Commissioner/Secretary GAD, Commissioner-Secretary Law, Commissioner Vigilance and Additional DIG CID constituted for considering pre-mature retirement cases of the officials under Article 226 (2) and 226 (3) of the J&K Civil Service Regulations met on August 8, 2006 for considering the case of four officers/ officials including the case of Janak Singh and it was decided to consider the general reputation of the Government employees, launching of prosecution on the basis of investigation conducted by the Vigilance Organization or Crime Branch etc and if a Government employee is found to have indulged in corrupt practices at different stages of his service career, he is liable for compulsorily retirement. The record also contains the grounds which weighed with the Committee for recommending compulsorily retirement of the petitioner.
Court observed that it appears FIR NO 69/1999 Police station Vigilance Organization Jammu came to be registered against the petitioner and other members of the State Level Purchase Committee headed by Ajit Kumar, IAS. The petitioner also figured one of the co-accused in the case. The court observed that while all the allegations leveled against the petitioner, which as per record, were made basis for his compulsorily retirement. What action has been initiated against other members of the purchase committee and the Chairman/ Head, is not forthcoming from the record, the court observed.
Court further observed that the Photostat copies of the record produced by the respondents for perusal, also contain APRs of the petitioner pertaining to the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 (from June up to ending November 2003). He has been ranked as an "Outstanding Officer" and integrity "beyond any doubt". In the APRs of 2003-2004, in the general assessment from which contains 10 clauses, the officer has been ranked as "Excellent Officer". It is also recorded that the officer-petitioner has made special efforts to rescheduled loan terms for payment of interest from 16.5% to 12.5%. It is also recorded that the petitioner is an outstanding officer with ability to work in a team as a group for efficient corporate working and Management. It is not coming out from record whether these APRs were taken into consideration by the Committee. It is nowhere indicated in the record that the confidential reports of the petitioner were considered by the Committee, though these APRs are part of the record. It is thus suggestive of the fact that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is based on no record.
While allowing the petition and quashing the impugned order Justice Mir further observed that Senior Advocate UK Jalali appearing for the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the petition that the other officers who were members of the purchase committee including the heads and who are co-accused in the case registered against the petitioner, came to be reinstated. Even respondents have not specifically or evasively denied the same. It is also a positive case of the petitioner that no action disciplinary/ otherwise compulsorily retirement order came to be passed against them, though they are co-accused in both the criminal cases. With these observations Court quashed the order No 968-GAD of 2006 dated August 14, 2006 whereby the petitioner came to be compulsorily retired from service. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
