G A BANDEY Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROCEEDINGS against the petitioner were initiated under the provisions of Prevention of Anti Corruption Act of 1962. During the pendency of these proceedings Govt. Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975 came into force. The case against the petitioner was therefore decided in accordance with Act of 1975 and he was punished, Six allegations against the petitioner were enquired into and in respect of the allegations he was held guilty and punished. The following punishments were awarded to the petitioner: - "Whereas the Governor after having considered the explanation furnished by the said Sh. G.A. Bandey in response to the show cause notice is of the opinion that the provisional conclusion already arrived at and communicated to him does not warrant any alteration. Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that: - Shri G.A. Bandey formerly Head master Govt. High School Gund Kashmir be reduced to lower post (non -gazetted) for a period of five years. Rs. 491.13paidtoShriAbdul Rahim Kumar on 1 -7 -1972 as pay far winter vacation be recovered from Shri Bandey. Pay for the period from 1 -6 -1972 to 23 -6 -1972 amounting to Rs. 115.36 paid to Shri Abdul Rahim Kumar unauthorisedly be recovered from Shri Bandey. Rs. 63.30 representing pay of Shri Abdul Rahim paid to him unauthorisedly for a period from 19 -7 -1972 to 31 -7 -1972 be recovered from Shri Bandey, Rs. 92.52 representing pay for the period from 1st August 1972 to 19th August, 1972 paid to Shri Abdul Rahini unauthorisedly be recovered from Shri Bandey. Rs. 21.66 paid to Ghulam Nabi for the period from 29 -10 -1972 to 31 -10 -1972 be recovered from Sh. Bandey. By order of the Governor."

(2.) PETITIONER challenges the impugned order, by which he was punished, dated 22 -12 -1978. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner was punished on no evidence. It is stated that guarantees contained in Act of 1962 were taken away which |has caused prejudice to the petitioner and it is also stated that the petitioner could not be tried for corruption charges, because he had not committed any corruption as defined in the Act of 1975.

(3.) ONE Mohd. Yousuf Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department has filed counter on behalf of the respondents. He has stated that on the basis of a written complaint investigation was conducted and cognizance against the petitioner was taken. He was charged which charges were later proved to be correct. The petitioner is said to have been given copy of the report of the enquiry and was asked to show cause against the proposed penalty. It is submitted that law was changed materially by Act of 1975; therefore the petitioner was not entitled to seek protection of provisions of 1962 Act. It is urged that the petitioner had drawn pay of certain persons who were working in the leave vacancies thereby he has caused loss to the exchequer.