| HC stays SVC order impleading ex-passport officer as respondent | | Issues notice to SVC, ex-IGP of CID, complainant | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 20: High court judge Tashi Rabstan has ordered to stay the operation of February 19, 2016 SVC (state vigilance commission) order, impleading Rajinder Kumar Gupta, then passport officer, Jammu, as respondent in a case.
The court directive came in a petition filed by Rajinder Gupta, who at present is SSP (railways), Jammu. SVC had impleaded him as respondent in a complaint filed by one Sudershan Singh Wazir of Trikuta Nagar.
After hearing the petitioner's counsel, the judge issued notices to SVC, Sudershan Singh Wazir and Dr B Srinivas, former IGP of CID and presently chief security officer, NTPC, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, returnable within four weeks. The court also issued notices in the miscellaneous petition as well and in the meantime, till next date before the bench, ordered that the February 19, 2016 impugned order, to the extent of impleadment of the petitioner, was directed to remain stayed.
The counsel submitted that SVC had erroneously and without any jurisdiction entertained Wazir's application and without hearing him or putting him to notice allowed the application and arrayed the petitioner as respondent and directed him to file the statement of defence when it had no powers to proceed against the petitioner as per the SVC Act, 2011 as, at the relevant point of time, he was discharging duties as passport officer, Jammu, on deputation with Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, and the petitioner was admittedly outside the purview and scope of the powers conferred to SVC under the Act.
He submitted that J&K Prevention of Corruption Act Svt 2006 was not extended to the officers of central government and for proceeding against them the only source was the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The CBI constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 could conduct investigations in J&K and the said Act was applicable to whole of India including J&K and by no stretch of imagination, SVC had the jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner when SVC had to exercised its power under J&K Prevention of Corruption Act which was not applicable to the petitioner, he submitted. |
|
