news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses appeal of State in Jute Matting Scam | | Compulsory retirement of CAO/FA | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 26 (JNF):- Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court
(Jammu Wing) comprising Justice Virender Singh and Justice Sunil Hali upheld judgment of writ Court whereby Single Judge had quashed the compulsorily retirement order of Janak Singh then posted in JDA Financial Advisor/ Chief Accounts Officer who was allegedly involved in the much publicized Jute Matting Purchase Scam.
The Vigilance Organization Jammu registered FIR 69/99 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. It also appears that the petitioner has allegedly certified in writing that he had verified the rates from the original manufacturers is allegedly involved in the case relating to purchase of Digital Toe Aligner, which came to be purchased by the Technical Education Dept in the year 1997-1998 and FIR came to be registered and petitioner was one of the member of the purchase
committee. All the allegations leveled against the petitioner which as per record were made basis for his compulsorily retirement. Aggrieved order of the writ, has filed this LPA challenging the quashment of the order.
This court after hearing Sanjay Kakkar Advocate appeared for the State whereas Adocate UK Jalali assisted by Advocate Shivani Jalali for the respondent Janak Singh and also gone through the judgment of the writ Court observed that A Committee was set up by the State Government to consider the cases of the officers and officials
for pre-mature retirement, consisting of the Chief Secretary, Financial Commissioner Home, Commissioner-Secretary General Administration Department, Commissioner-Secretary Law Department, Additional Director General, CID and Commissioner of Vigilance. A decision is stated to have been taken by this Committee, which
culminated in the pre-mature retirement of various government officers, which included the present respondent also. The Committee recommended the pre-mature retirement of the Janak Singh.
The court further observed that at the out set it may be important to mention that State has not produced the record on the basis of which the Review Committee has formulated its opinion. The report of the Committee only reveals the conclusions and not the basis on which such conclusions have been made for purposes of analyzing the
general reputation of the respondent, his character roll in the shape
of APRs is one of the relevant considerations, which reveals the performance of the officer over a period of time as assessed by his superior officers under whose direct supervision the officer has been working. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that there was any adverse entry against the respondent. It is pertinent to note that
respondent has earned promotion in the shape of selection grade in the year 2004. The circumstance dealing with the registration of two FIRs against the respondent dates back to the year 1997-98, which is remote in point of time and could not become the basis for his pre-mature retirement. Subsequent promotion of the respondent dilutes the
allegations leveled against him. This is an area where no documents of his service profile regarding his reputation have been maintained by his superiors. Otherwise also no specific material has been brought before the Court except for the fact that two criminal cases have been registered against the respondent. This is an area which is purely
based on hearsay. DB could not look for some specific material regarding the adverse reports on the general reputation claimed to have been gathered from cross section of people. Since the Review Committee, with its given texture, was not a fact finding or
investigating machinery, it could not be expected to directly gather the reports. Nothing has been reflected, regarding the contents of the complaints received from the general public on the basis of which opinion has been formulated. On records therefore, there is no such report or even a mention thereof, in absence whereof the observations
of the Committee, only appear to reflect certain loose impressions, attributable to hearsay which appears to have been at the back of their mind while recommending the pre-mature retirement of the Janak Singh.
The court referred various judgments of the Supreme Court and further observed that it is clearly revealed that there was no sufficient material available with the appellants (State) in ordering the pre mature retirement of the Janak Singh. The opinion had to be framed on the basis of the service profile of the Janak Singh. The
only material which was available was the APRs of the Janak Singh where no adverse entry is stated to have been recorded. With these observations Division Bench dismissed the appeal of the State that there is no merit in this appeal. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
