A N RAINA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the respondent -Government dated 17th October 1959. The respondent -Government resists the petition on the grounds that the order impugned is perfectly valid and that the petition is misconceived and untenable.

(2.) THE following are the salient facts of the case. The petitioner, a lecturer in a Government College, was appointed Superintendent of a University examination centre in connection with the B. A. degree supplementary examination held in 1956. One of the Candidates writing the examination at that centre, managed to import clandestinely into the examination hall answer papers written for her by an outsider, and submitted them to the Superintendent as her own. This unusually daring malpractice was discovered much after the examinations and the University held an investigation into it. The petitioner who was the Superintendent at the particular examination centre came in for adverse criticism and the Registrar of the University wrote to the Government against the petitioner. This led the Government to frame certain charges against the petitioner and institute a departmental inquiry against him. He was placed under suspension on 9 -10 -58 pending the disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry was entrusted to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings. Tribunal) Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal Rules.â„¢)

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner against this order is that the Government ought to have accepted the original advice of the Tribunal and granted him for the period of suspension the full salary to which he would have been entitled if he had not been suspended. He has sought to reinforce Hs case for quashing the impugned order by pointing out that under Rule 8(b) of to Tribunal Rules, the Government was bound W call upon him to show cause against. Its proposal to treat the period of his suspension as period of leave. According to him, the order treating the suspension period as leave period is a penalty inflicted on him within the meaning of Rule 8(b) of the Tribunal Rules. Pursuing this line of reasoning, the petitioner goes further and says that the conclusion that he was responsible for negligence or dereliction of duty in having failed to detect the unfair means adopted by the examinee was a finding reached behind his back and as such opposed to the canons of natural justice. And if this finding is eschewed from consideration, it is argued the Government order in question will be devoid of any basis or justification. All these arguments are admittedly addressed for the purpose of enabling the petitioner to get his full -salary for the period of his suspension.