KISHANDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in writ petitions on hand, face trial in case FIR no. 10 of 1993 Police Station, VOK under sections 420, 467, 472,120-B RPC , Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, before Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Srinagar for their alleged role in large scale embezzlement of government funds in Rural Development Department, District Anantnag. Petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006, after the aforesaid case was registered were initially dismissed from service. Their challenge to dismissal from service in a writ petition, succeeded where-after they vide Government Order No. 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004 though reinstated were retrospectively placed under suspension with effect from the date of their dismissal. However, petitioners in SWP no. 1409/2009 were vide Govt. Order No. 675-GAD of 1993 dated 12.08.1993 placed under suspension and attached with the office of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.

(2.) The trial remains to be concluded and the trial Court is yet to return a finding on their alleged involvement in, what is commonly known as "Anantnag Scam", and the charge framed against each of them. They during pendency of trial have retired on superannuation. However, they have not been allowed the retiral benefits till date. They, therefore, are caught in a situation where they are not in a position to sustain themselves in old age, and provide for their families. The retiral benefits due to them, would be the only source of sustenance for them and their families and without pensionery benefits otherwise due to them, except for their alleged involvement in the aforesaid case, they, and their families are left high and dry without any source to fall back upon.

(3.) The grievance voiced in the writ petition no. 1317/2006 is two fold. In the first place, petitioners complain that their other colleagues facing trial like petitioners on a similar charge before Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Srinagar, have been reinstated, promoted and even allowed all retiral benefits, while petitioners have been singled out for discriminatory treatment. Secondly, it is contended that the respondents after their reinstatement, lacked power to place them under suspension retrospectively with effect from 25.06.1993.