news details |
|
|
| Attachment of six revenue officers challenged | | | Jammu, Jan 15
In a writ petition filed by six Revenue Officers/Officials challenging the directions passed by the State Accountability Commission (SAC) to withdraw them from the field duty and their subsequent attachment with DC’s office pending disposal of the complaints against them, Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain Vacation Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court admitted the petition and directed that December 29,2006 order passed by the SAC in a complaint titled Sudesh Kumar Vs B R Sharma and Others shall remain in abeyance.
Janak Singh, Jagbir Singh, Fazal Ahmed, Subhash Chander, Mohd Bashir and Choudhary Aslam Din, working on various posts and posted in the field, challenged the direction passed by the State Accountability Commission (SAC).
Justice Hussain, after hearing DC Raina and GS Thakur advocates appearing for the petitioners and MA Goni and MA Bhat advocates appearing for the respondents, observed that in a complaint, the SAC has directed respondents to remove the petitioners from the active field service. The petitioners aggrieved of the order on three main grounds, firstly under the provisions of the Act the SAC does not have the power to issue directions, the Commission can only make a recommendation to the Government, secondly the proceedings initiated on the complaint or pending for more than six months before the Commission and that no reasons are recorded by the commission for extension of the period and thirdly no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioners to explain their case and reply the charges leveled against them.
Justice Hussain while admitting the petition to hearing further observed that Adv DC Raina appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Commission does not possess the power to issue directions as its role is only recommendatory in nature. Thus being mandate of law, the direction issued by the Commission in respect of the petitioners fell beyond the powers and jurisdiction of the Commission. Adv MA Goni appearing for the SAC conceding this position of the law stated that the direction issued by the commission be treated as recommendation of the Commission and the Government may accordingly act upon the observations made by it against the petitioners. Court said that in view of the issue raised, the submissions made by the counsel for the parties petition is admitted to hearing and issued notice to the respondents with the direction to file counter within two weeks. In the meanwhile, order impugned in the present petition shall remain in abeyance. Court further clarified that this order, however, shall not prevent the commission to proceed further in the matter and take proceedings or pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the Act. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
