MOHAMMAD RIZWANUL HAQUE Vs. CENTRAL WAKF COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is presently working as Secretary of Central Wakf Council, was initially appointed to the present position on deputation with effect from 3rd July, 1997 and was absorbed as Secretary with effect from 21st August 2000. The petitioner was also appointed as Administrator of Punjab Wakf Board, in addition to his charge as Secretary, Central Wakf Council. The petitioner handed over charge of Punjab Wakf Board to his successor on 1st October, 2002.

(2.) Vide show cause notice dated 12th August, 2002, the petitioner was informed that Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment had received a number of complaints against him with respect to irregular appointments and other irregularities in Punjab Wakf Board, and that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Government to investigate into those complaints had found the lapses, noted at Serial No.1 to 7 in the show cause notice, in the management of Punjab Wakf Board. He was required to show cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him for committing irregularities mentioned in the notice. The petitioner replied to the show cause on 4th September, 2002. It appears that CBI also received complaint dated 20th June, 2002 against the petitioner from one Mr. Fardeen Iqbal, forwarded to it by Central Vigilance Commission(CVC), and a preliminary enquiry was registered by it on 29th January, 2004. CBI made a recommendation to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 22nd December, 2004 to initiate major penalty proceedings against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet dated 5th December, 2008 was issued to the petitioner by the Chairman of Central Wakf Council. The petitioner, instead of giving a parawise reply to the charge sheet, sent a letter dated 17th December, 2008, denying the charges made against him but also seeking to submit pointwise reply to those charges. He sought personal inspection of original files relating to appointment of 19 persons mentioned in the reply and also sought a copy of the enquiry report of the CBI, so that he could submit pointwise reply to the memo of charge. The respondents have not supplied the copy of the CBI report to the petitioner though inspection of the files mentioned in the reply has been given to him.

(3.) In this Writ Petition the petitioner is seeking quashing of the charge and enquiry proceedings initiated against him.