news details |
|
|
| Pendency of criminal case cannot be construed as impediment in appointment: DB | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 17: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Chowdhary while dismissing the appeal filed by UT, observed that the pendency of a criminal case cannot be construed as an impediment in appointment and performance of duties by such person.
This judgment has been passed in an appeal filed by the UT of Jammu & Kashmir against the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed OA and set aside the order impugned therein dated 03.01.2024 whereby the petitioner No. 2 had withdrawn the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent under SRO 43, pursuant to his appointment order dated 05.12.2023 and joining order dated 06.12.2023 in PWD (R&B) Division Bhaderwah. The petitioners, however, have been authorized to proceed further on conclusion of the trial against the respondent.
The facts, as summarized before the learned Tribunal, are that the respondent came to be appointed under SRO 43 on account of death of his father, by the petitioners herein by virtue of Order No. CEJ/ADM/232 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023, in compliance to the approval conveyed by the Administrative Department; that pursuant to his appointment, the respondent came to be posted in PWD(R&B), Division Bhaderwah for further duties and the respondent joined at his place of posting on 06.12.2023; that the respondent swore an affidavit that he has not been convicted of any offence by any court of law and that he is facing trial in one case; that on 23.12.2023, the respondent No. 4-Executiver Engineer, PWD(R&B), Division Bhaderwah vide his communication stated that the respondent had been allowed to join in the Division after proper verification of the documents and on receipt of character/antecedent certificate from CID vide Form No. 55821 dated 17.05.2023; that the respondent had revealed that he was under trial in one case and said case has not been disposed of till date as such, instructions were sought for the withdrawal of the salary of the respondent by the petitioner No. 4-Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Division, Bhaderwah from the petitioner No. 3-Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B) Chenab Zone, Batote. The petitioner No. 2-Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B), Jammu vide his No. CEJ/ADM|0| of 2024 dated 03.01.2024, however, issued an order Withdrawing the appointment of the respondent with immediate effect vide communication No. 1123-27 dated 04.01.2024, on the sole consideration that the respondent was involved in a case registered under FIR No. 0087/2023 under section 8/21 of NDPS Act of Police Station, Bhaderwah.
DB after hearing both the sides observed that Since the respondent, who had been appointed as an MTS (Class IV), the question is whether his service can be terminated on the ground of a pendency of a criminal case. Unless a person is held guilty by conviction in a trial held by a court, the presumption of his innocence has to be construed as a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence. Merely involvement in a criminal case when the trial is still underway is not a mirror to reflect the character and antecedents of a person. Needless to mention that if a deserving person is denied appointment then even if later on he is acquitted by the trial court, there is very little scope for him to get the Government employment. The pendency of a criminal case cannot be construed as an impediment in appointment and performance of duties by such person.
DB observed that the Tribunal has rightly discussed the J&K Civil Services (Verification of Character and Antecedents) Instructions, 1997 notified vide Government Order No. 1918-GAD of 1997 dated 09.12.1997 which are to be kept in mind with regard to periodic verification of character and antecedents of Government employee. Herein in this case, the respondent had not concealed the fact of being accused in a criminal case and facing trial and the CID had also not reported any adverse remarks against him in verification report as such, the appointment of the respondent could not have been withdrawn on the basis of mere registration of a case and pending trial and that too without affording him an opportunity of being heard, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided the case. With these observations, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
