news details |
|
|
| On suspension, revocation cannot be claimed as a matter of right: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 12: A high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Hansain Massodi held that prevention of corruption case registered against a person and others against whom investigation was going on and they were arrested and released on bail after 15 days of custody, the revocation of suspension as a matter of right cannot be claimed unless the finality of proceedings is reached.
However, if the competent authority is of the view that suspension order needs to be revoked on proper review, it can be done provided the public interest is not put to prejudice, the bench observed.
This judgment was passed in a petition filed by Mohammad Maqbool Bhat, praying the court to quash his June 2, 2014 order of suspension and for direction to continue his service as a senior assistant in the office of respondent No 4 or in the alternative all other persons who were working on the posts of Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer be also placed under suspension and everyone be treated alike before law in terms of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bench observed that in so far as the alternate prayer made by the writ petitioner is concerned, the advocate general has submitted that after investigation of the case registered in FIR 91 of 2014 under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with sections 409, 467, 468 and 120-B of RPC on the file of Police Station Handwara, the Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and the Junior Engineer had also been placed under suspension after they were arrested. It is stated that the investigation of the case is in progress. It is also stated that the petitioner was arrested on March 18, 2015 and he was granted bail on April 3, 2015.
In so far as the first prayer of the petitioner seeking to quash the order of suspension is concerned, while the writ petitioner worked as Senior Assistant in the office of the Executive Engineer, PHE Division Handwara during 2013-2014, a committee was constituted to probe into the execution of works and submission of utilization of material pursuant to the direction issued by this court in PIL No 16/2014. In the PIL, this Court, noticing registration of FIR No 91/2014, directed the SSP, Crime Branch, Kashmir, to expedite the investigation which was stated to be in progress. During the contemplation of the investigation and enquiry the writ petitioner was placed under suspension.
The respondents have stated that the petitioner is the main architect of fraud and embezzlement and during the course of investigation he was arrested and he is now facing the criminal action. The alleged discrimination pleaded by him is also not available as other persons were also suspended.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that he was not responsible for any fraud or embezzlement and the suspension order issued against him be quashed or at least the respondents may be directed to review the order of suspension under Rule 31 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956.
The advocate general then submitted that the petitioner was involved in fraud and embezzlement of government money and was suspended pending investigation and there was no illegality in the order of suspension.
After hearing the two sides, the bench observed that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is accused of fraud and embezzlement of the government money and he is also one of the accused in FIR 91/2014. He was arrested on March 18, 2015 and remanded to judicial custody and came out only after bail which was granted on April 3, 2015. In such circumstances, he cannot contend that there is no justification in placing him under suspension. It is the contention of the respondents that the investigation conducted so far has revealed that Rs 86,00,900 and Rs 62,95,053 were found drawn fraudulently/dishonestly by abuse of official position by the public servants and later misappropriated. A further sum of Rs 20,34,623, drawn on account of non-existent works, was also misappropriated.
Thus the petitioner is facing a very serious allegation of fraud and misappropriation of government money and he is facing allegations of corruption while discharging his functions as a government servant along with others. With these observations, the bench dismissed the LPA.(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
