news details |
|
|
| HC quashes withholding of 3 increments of then Dy. Director Libraries | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Feb 11- Quashing the impugned order dated January 22, 2001 imposing punishment of withholding three increments with the postponement of future increments, Justice Sunil Hall of J&K High Court Jammu Wing, in a petition filed by Dr. NC Prabhakar then Deputy Director Libraries challenging the Government order today observed that the whole process of inquiry initiated against the petitioner is vitiated.
In the approved for the reporting judgment, Justice Hali, after hearing Advocate Anil Sethi appearing for the petitioner and Additional Advocate General Seema Shekhar appearing for the state of J&K and Principal Secretary Education Department, observed that the petitioner was appointed in the planning department and was sent on transfer to the Education Department. During his tenure in the education department some irregularities are alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. He was placed under suspension by the Education Department and the said suspension order was challenged, the petition was allowed on the ground that the education department was not the appointing authority of the petitioner as his parent department was planning and the order of suspension was quashed. It was submitted by the Advocate Anil Sethi appearing for the petitioner that after quashing the suspension order, Principal Secretary Education Department framed charges and referred the matter for enquiry to the Commissioner of Enquiry who initiated enquiry on the basis of charge-sheet prepared by the Additional Secretary to Government Higher Education Department and the petitioner was granted opportunity to defend himself. The enquiry officer in fact proved some charges against the petitioner and accordingly the Planning Department was asked to initiate action in pursuance to the findings of the enquiry officer and the Planning Department issued the impugned order.
Justice Hali, while allowing the petition, further observed that there is no compliance of Rule 35 of Classification Control and Appeal Rule of 1956. No notice has envisaged before imposing the order of punishment under rule 35 has been served on the petitioner. The proposed charge-sheet has been prepared by the Principal Secretary Education who was neither disciplinary authority nor the appointing authority; the charge sheet could have been farmed by the disciplinary authority or enquiry officer. It reveals from the report of the enquiry officer that charge sheet has been prepared by the Additional Secretary to Government Higher Education Department who was neither disciplinary authority nor the appointing authority. The whole process of enquiry initiated against the petitioner is vitiated. With these observations, the Court quashed the impugned order January 22, 2001. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
