news details |
|
|
| HC modifies session judge's dismissal order to compulsory retirement | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Mar 16: A high court division bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasnthakumar and Justice Tashi Rabstan today ruled that the order of dismissal of then district and sessions judge Sain Dass (now dead) was too harsh, it could be modified to compulsory retirement from the date he completed 58 years of age, ie December 31, 2003, so that his legal heirs 'get retiral benefits, arrears of pension from the date of retirement to the date of death and family pension from the date of death.
The bench said retiral benefits and arrears of pension should be calculated and paid to the legal representatives of Sain Dass within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sain Dass, who had challenged his dismissal, died during the pendency of writ petition on March 31, 2013. He was appointed as munsiff-cum-judicial magistrate 1st class in August, 1974 and promoted as sub-judge and district and sessions judge. While he was posted as 2nd additional district and sessions judge, Jammu, then acting Chief Justice, on the basis of complaints from bar members and general public, had directed registrar vigilance on May 26, 2003 to conduct an inquiry. He was placed under suspension on May 31, 2003.
After conducting the probe, the registrar vigilance submitted his report with remarks of serious suspicion on Sain Dass's working. A charge memo was then issued on June 3, 2003, alleging that he had disposed of a number of cases by over stepping his jurisdiction, unmindful of explicit provisions of law, not giving fair chance to prosecution to prove its cases, disposed of applications without the same being assigned by the principal district and sessions judge in a cursory and casual manner on the day of presentation and by releasing the huge quantity of seized kerosene oil, granted bail to the accused, who were involved in offence punishable under section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act in utter disregard to the law relating to bail in a casual and routine manner, granted anticipatory bail to the accused involved in offence under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, the jurisdiction of which is exclusively vested with special judge, anti-corruption, Jammu, and after granting bail allowed the accused to withdraw the application giving way to escape custodial interrogation and disposed of more than 100 anticipatory bail applications from January 1, 2003 to May 12, 2003. 77 of the bail applications were dismissed in default and the applicants got relief and avoided custodial interrogation. He had also not insisted on police reports and objections from the prosecution. The bench, while passing the order observed that before parting with the case, "we need to point out that this order having been passed on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case need not be mis-construed as giving an impression that this court is not serious about the allegations leveled against the writ petitioner particularly with regard to proven charges". With these observations, the bench partially allowed the petition. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
