GH MOHD MIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue Department. Certain allegation of mis -conduct were brought against him. it was alleged that he had manipulated a wrong entry in his Service Book in regard to his confirmation as Girdawar and that he had thereby secured premature promotion as Naib Tehsildar. The Revenue Minister ordered departmental action against the petitioner and directed that the disciplinary proceedings shall be held by the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner framed the necessary charges and communicated the same to the petitioner the petitioner submitted his explanation. After perusing the explanation the Divisional Commissioner found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. He accordingly recommended that the petitioner should be demoted to the post of Girdawar. He routed his recommendation through the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner served a notice on the petitioner to show cause why the recommendation should not be accepted. The petitioner submitted his reply and asked for regular enquiry. The Financial Commissioner felt that it would cause great hardship to the petitioner if he were reverted to the post of Girdawar after having served as Naib Tehsildar for a period of two years. He, therefore, recommended that the petitioner may not be reverted and instead his two increments may be stopped which shall have the effect of postponing his future increments. The Revenue Minister, however, felt that the recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner was more reasonable than that of the Financial Commissioner and passed an order accordingly. The order reads :

(2.) BY means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order as being void, illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE petitioners ground of challenge, as his counsel put it, is that the power to hold disciplinary proceedings could not be delegated to the subordinate authorities and consequently the proceedings taken by the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner are incompetent and suffer from want of jurisdiction. For this, he has placed reliance on Rule 331 and 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 196, as also on the decision in case of Manihar Singh Versus Superintendent of Police AIR 1969 Assam aud Nagaland, 1 Rule 33 and 34 provide as under .