MOHD YOUSUF ALLAI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT on selection followed by his appointment joined the Subordinate Judicial Services as Munsiff on 25.4.2000. His selection and appointment is in RBA category against one of the category Munsiff posts, on the strength of the RBA certificate qua his residence in village Rukhshilvat Tehsil Sonawari, District Baramulla, issued by Tehsildar Sonawari on 3.12.1996. One Javed Ahmad who also happens to be a Judicial officer has challenged selection/ appointment of the Appellant against the Reserve Category post in SWP 1755/2000 with allegation that the RBA Certificate obtained by appellant is based on misrepresentation, fraud, concealment of material facts and impersonation.

(2.) WHILE the petition was pending for service of notice at pre admission stage, an anonymous complaint was filed against the appellant with the Chief Secretary of J&K State. In this complaint Deputy Commissioner Baramulla was asked to enquire and file report, by Divisional Commissioner Kashmir. The Deputy Commissioner Baramulla, initiated enquiry. However, the Appellant without loosing any time, filed SWP No. 973/2000 for quashment of this communication issued by Divisional Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner Baramulla, qua enquiry into the case of RBA Certificate of the Appellant and for restraining the respondents/State and its officials from making any enquiry in the matter pending disposal of the above writ petition. While admitting writ petition of the Appellant, the two writ petitions were directed to be listed together along with the connected CMPâ„¢s including CMP 2702 -A/2000, where an initial provisional direction of stay, qua enquiry of Appellantâ„¢s RBA certificate initiated by the respondents was stayed. Both the writ petitions alongwith the CMPâ„¢s came on board. The Writ court passed an order on agreement of Ld. Counsel for the parties entrusting the enquiry to Registrar Vigilance (Judicial) and placing on record directions for Registrar Vigilance in respect of enquiry to be concluded within one month and report to be filed before the court. CMP 2702/2000 was also disposed of in terms of this direction. This order is under challenge in this appeal (LP) before us.

(3.) WE heard the Ld. counsel, and perused the record. On consideration, we find that the impugned order is a consent order. Counsel has put forth no cause for enquiry and has agreed for assigning the fact finding enquiry to the Registrar Vigilance. On the premise, court passed following order; The inquiry shall be completed and report placed before the Court within one month which period shall begin from 18th of August 2003. The Registrar Vigilance shall associate both the petitioners if and when necessary. The Divisional Commissioner Kashmir shall cause appearance of Tehsildars Sonawari and Pattan before the Registrar Vigilance alongwith the inquiry file and other relevant record pertaining to the subject matter of the writ petitions on 18th of August 2003 who shall have to remain in attendance as may be directed by the Registrar Vigilance. Any lapse shall be at their own peril. Any officer of the State if summoned by the Registrar Vigilance in connection with the inquiry shall have to appear immaterial, he may not be a party to the writ petition. Record of these writ petitions shall be delivered to the Registrar Vigilance forthwith. Record of any other case if summoned by the Registrar Vigilance shall be made available to him without reference to the bench. Report shall be produced by the Registrar Vigilance in a sealed cover.